UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT   LOS  ANGELES 


THE   WORKS 


OF 


JOHN  C.  CALHOUN. 


VOL.  II. 


NEW  YORK: 
D.    APPLETON   AND   COMPANY, 


448    A    445    BUOADWAY. 
M.DCCC.I.XIV. 


*  ?  5  »       " 


-    • 


SPEECHES 


JOHN   C.  CALHOUN, 


DELIVERED    IN    TUB 


HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES, 


SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


EDITED  BY 

RICHAED   K.  CRALLE, 


NEW  YORK: 
D.    APPLETON  AND   COMPANY, 


443    &    445    BROADWAY. 


ENTERED,  according  to  act  of  Congress,  by 
JAMES  E.  CALHOUN, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  district 
of  South  Carolina. 


3:37/8 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE  collection  of  the  Speeches  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  here  offered  to  the 
public,  includes,  it  is  believed,  all  delivered  by  him  in  Congress  of  any 
general  interest — or  rather,  all,  of  which  any  reliable  reports  have  been 
preserved.  Many,  no  doubt,  especially  during  the  war  of  1812, 
through  carelessness  and  the  want  of  competent  reporters  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  have  been  lost — a  fact  the  more  to  be  re- 
gretted, as  the  period  was  marked  by  events  of  much  moment  to  the 
country.  For  the  comparatively  few  which  have  been  preserved,  the 
public  is  chiefly  indebted  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Simkins,  at  that  time  a 
member  of  the  House  from  South  Carolina,  who,  for  his  own  gratifi- 
cation, took  notes  aud  drew  out  the  sketches  (for  they  are  by  no 
means  full  reports)  which  appear  in  this  collection.  For  the  use  of 
these,  the  Editor  is  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  the  Hon.  Francis  W. 
Pickens — to  whom  he  takes  this  occasion  to  return  his  acknowledg- 
ments. Others,  belonging  to  the  same  period,  have  been  copied  from 
manuscripts  found  among  the  papers  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  though  not  in 
his  handwriting. 

Of  the  Speeches  delivered  in  the  Senate,  between  the  years  1833 
and  1850,  a  much  larger  number  has  been  preserved.  They  are,  for 
the  most  part,  better  reported ;  and  not  a  few  were  published  in  pam- 
phlet form  at  the  time,  under  his  own  inspection.  Still,  so  constant 
and  pressing  were  his  engagements — so  incessant  the  demands  on  his 


25400O 


Vi  ADVEKTISEMENT. 

time,  that  it  is  impossible  he  could  have  bestowed  much  attention, 
except  on  those  connected  with  the  more  important  subjects  of  discus- 
sion. Many  were  left  to  be  drawn  out  by  the  reporters ;  and  his  pe- 
culiar position,  in  regard  to  the  two  great  contending  parties  of  the 
country,  was  any  thing  but  favorable  to  fulness  and  fidelity.  Not  a 
few  (and  among  them  some  on  questions  of  much  interest)  were  never 
reported  at  all,  or  otherwise  so  mangled  and  garbled, — to  serve  a  tem- 
porary purpose, — as  to  render  them  unworthy  of  this  collection.  A  suffi- 
cient number,  however,  it  is  hoped,  has  been  preserved  from  the  ravages 
of  time,  and  the  still  more  ruthless  spirit  of  party,  to  insure,  as  a  tribute 
to  his  virtues,  the  love  of  the  Patriot,  the  admiration  of  the  Statesman, 
and  the  gratitude  of  the  Historian  and  the  Philosopher. 

As  many  of  the  questions  discussed  during  the  war  of  1812,  both 
of  a  foreign  and  domestic  character,  have  probably,  to  some  extent, 
faded  from  the  public  memory,  the  Editor  has  prepared  a  brief  intro- 
ductory note  to  the  Speeches  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, which  he  hopes  will  be  acceptable  to  the  general  reader.  It 
was  deemed  unnecessary  to  adopt  the  same  course  in  regard  to 
Speeches  of  a  more  recent  date. 

April  8,  1858. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II. 


Speech  on  the  Resolution  of  the  Committee  on 

Foreign  Relations, Dec.  12,  1811. 

Speech  on  the  Petition  of  the  Citizens  of  Albany,  May  6,  1812. 

Speech  on  the  Repeal  of  the  Non-importation  Act,  June  24.  1812. 

Speech  on  the  subject  of  Merchants'  Bonds,      .  Dec.  4,  1812. 

Speech  on  the  new  Army  Bill,     ....  Jan.  14, 1813. 

Speech  on  the  Bill  to  encourage  Enlistments,     .  Jan.  17,  1814. 

Speech  on  the  Loan  Bill. Feb.  25, 1814. 

Speech  on  the  Repeal  of  the  Embargo,      .        .  April  6,  1814. 

Speech  on  the  Increase  of  the  Direct  Tax,     .        .  Oct.  25,  1814. 

Speech  on  the  Military  Peace  Establishment,     .  Feb.  27,  1815. 

Speech  on  the  Commercial  Convention  with  Great 

Britain, Jan.  9,   1816. 

Speech  on  the  Repeal  of  the  Direct  Tax,      .        .  Jan.  31,  1816. 

Speech  on  the  United  States  Bank  Bill,    .        .  Feb.  26,  1816. 

Speech  on  the  Tariff  Bill,     .         .  .  April  6,  1816. 

Speech  on  the  Compensation  Bill,      .        .        .  Jan.  17,  1817. 

^Speech  on  the  Internal  Improvement  Bill,     .         .  Feb.  4,  1817. 

Speech  on  the  Revenue  Collection  (Force)  Bill,  Feb.  15-1  o,  1833.197 

Speech  on  his   Resolutions  in  support  of  State 

Rights, Feb.  26,  1833. 

Speech  on  the  RemovaT  of  the  Public  Deposits,    .  Jan.  13,  1834. 


VU1 


CONTENTS. 


511- 


N/Speech  on  the  Bill  to  recharter  the  United  States 

Bank, . 

-^Speech  on  the  Bill  to  Repeal  the  Force  Act.      . 
Speech  on  the  President's  Protest, 
Speech  on  the  subject  of  Removals  from  Office, 
Speech  on  the  Report  relating  to  Executive  Pa- 
tronage,   7*-    .       ..       .       .       .'•••' 

Speech  on  Abolition  Petitions,  *". 

Speech  on  the  Bill  to  preserve  the  Public  Records, 

Speech  on  the  Power  of  the  States  in  respect  to 

Aliens, 

Speech  on  the  Circulation  of  Incendiary  Papers, 
Speech  on  the  Bill  to  regulate  the  Public  Deposits, 
Speech  on  the  Bill  to  extend  the  provisions  of  the 

Deposit  Act, 

Speech  on  the  Application  of  the  Surplus  Revenues, 
Speech  on  the  Bill  for  the  Admission  of  Michigan, 
Speech  on  the  same  subject,  .... 
Speech  on  the  Motion  to  recommit  the  Land  Bill, 
Speech  on  the  Reception  of  Abolition  Petitions, 
Speech  on  the  Bill  to  cede  the  Public  Lands,  . 


ATarch  21,  1834. 
April  9, 1834. 
May  6,  1834. 
Feb.       1835.       f426 

Feb.  13,  1835. 
March  9,  1836. 
March  26,  1836. 

April  2,  1836. 
April  12,  1836. 
May  28,  1836.  534 


Dec.  21,  1836. 
Dec.  28, 1836. 
Jan.  2,  1837. 
Jan.  5,  1837. 
Feb.  4,  1837. 
Feb.  6,  1837. 
Feb.  7, 1837. 


75 


SPEECHES. 


SPEECH 

On  the  second  Kesolution  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations,  delivered  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  Dec.  12,  1811. 

[NOTE. — The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  on  the  29th  of 
November,  1811,  submitted  a  report,  which,  after  an  able  examination 
of  the  causes  of  war  with  Great  Britain,  concluded  by  recommending 
to  the  House  the  adoption  of  a  series  of  resolutions,  among  which  was 
the  following : 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  an  additional  force  of  ten  thousand  regulai 
troops  ought  to  be  immediately  raised  to  serve  for  three  years ;  and 
that  a  bounty  in  lands  ought  to  be  given  to  encourage  enlistments." 

This  resolution  having  been  amended  in  committee  of  the  Whole, 
by  striking  out  the  word  "  ten?  was  reported  to  the  House,  where  an 
animated  debate  ensued.  A  majority  of  the  committee  avowed  their 
object  to  be  a  preparation  for  war ;  and  the  discussion  took  the  widest 
range,  embracing  almost  every  topic  of  foreign  and  domestic  policy. 
The  principal  speaker,  on  the  part  of  the  opposition,  was  Mr.  Randolph 
of  Virginia,  to  whose  remarks  Mr.  Calhoun  seems  to  have  confined 
his  reply.  The  resolution  was  finally  adopted — Yeas,  109  ;  Nays,  22.] 

MB.  SPEAKER  : — I  understood  the  opinion  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Relations,  differently  from  what  the  gen- 
tleman from  Virginia  (Mr.  Randolph)  has  stated  to  be  his 

VOL.  II. — 1 


SPEECHES. 


impression.  I  certainly  understood  that  the  committee  re- 
commended the  measures  now  before  the  House,  as  a  pre- 
paration for  war ;  and  such,  in  fact,  was  its  express  resolve, 
agreed  to,  I  believe,  by  every  member,  except  that  gentleman. 
I  do  not  attribute  any  wilful  misstatement  to  him,  but 
consider  it  the  effect  of  inadvertency  or  mistake.  Indeed, 
the  Eeport  could  mean  nothing  but  war  or  empty  menace. 
1 1iope  no  member  of  this  House  is  in  favor  of  the  latter.  A 
bullying,  menacing  system,  has  every  thing  to  condemn  and 
nothing  to  recommend  it.  In  expense,  it  almost  rivals  war. 
It  excites  contempt  abroad,  and  destroys  confidence  at  home. 
Menaces  are  serious  things  ;  and  ought  to  be  resorted  to  with 
as  much  caution  and  seriousness,  as  war  itself ;  and  should, 
if  not  successful,  be  invariably  followed  by  it.  It  was  not 
the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grrundy)  who  made  this 
a  war  question.  The  resolve  contemplates  an  additional 
regular  force  ;  a  measure  confessedly  improper  but  as  a  pre- 
paration for  war,  but  undoubtedly  necessary  in  that  event. 

Sir,  I  am  not  insensible  to  the  weighty  importance  of 
the  proposition,  for  the  first  time  submitted  to  this  House, 
to  compel  a  redress  of  our  long  list  of  complaints  against  one 
of  the  belligerents.  According  to  my  mode  of  thinking, 
the  more  serious  the  question,  the  stronger  and  more  unalter- 
able ought  to  be  our  convictions  before  we  give  it  our  support. 
War,  in  our  country,  ought  never  to  be  resorted  to  but 
when  it  is  clearly  justifiable  and  necessary ;  so  much  so, 
as  not  to  require  the  aid  of  logic  to  convince  our  understand- 
ings, nor  the  ardor  of  eloquence  to  inflame  our  passions. 
There  are  many  reasons  why  this  country  should  never  resort 
to  war  but  for  causes  the  most  urgent  and  necessary.  It  is 
sufficient  that,  under  a  government  like  ours,  none  but  such 
will  justify  it  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  ;  and  were  I  not  satis- 
fied that  such  is  the  present  case,  I  certainly  would  be  no 
advocate  of  the  proposition  now  before  the  House. 

Sir,  I  might  prove  the  war,  should  it  ensue,  justifiable, 


SPEECHES.  3 

by  the  express  admission  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  ; — 
and  necessary,  by  facts  undoubted,  and  universally  admitted  ; 
such  as  he  did  not  pretend  to  controvert.  The  extent, 
duration,  and  character  of  the  injuries  received  ;  the  failure 
of  those  peaceful  means  heretofore  resorted  to  for  the  redress 
of  our  wrongs,  are  my  proofs  that  it  is  necessary.  Why  should 
I  mention  the  impressment  of  our  seamen  ;  depredations  on 
every  branch  of  our  commerce,  including  the  direct  export 
trade,  continued  for  years,  and  made  under  laws  which  pro- 
fessedly undertake  to  regulate  our  trade  with  other  nations  ; 
negotiation  resorted  to,  again  and  again,  till  it  is  become  hope- 
less ;  the  restrictive  system  persisted  in  to  avoid  war,  and  in 
the  vain  expectation  of  returning  justice  ?  The  evil  still  grows, 
and,  in  each  succeeding  year,  swells  in  extent  and  pretension 
beyond  the  preceding.  The  question,  even  in  the  opinion  and 
by  the  admission  of  our  opponents  is  reduced  to  this  single 
point— Which  shall  we  do,  abandon  or  defend  our  own  com- 
mercial and  maritime  rights,  and  the  personal  liberties  of  our 
citizens  employed  in  exercising  them  ?  These  rights  are 
vitally  attacked,  and  war  is  the  only  means  of  redress. 
The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  suggested  none,  unless  we 
consider  the  whole  of  his  speech  as  recommending  patient 
and  resigned  submission  as  the  best  remedy.  Sir,  which  al- 
ternative this  House  will  embrace,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say. 
I  hope  the  decision  is  made  already,  by  a  higher  authority 
than  the  voice  of  any  man.  It  is  not  for  the  human  tongue 
to  instil  the  sense  of  independence  and  honor.  This  is  the 
work  of  nature  ;  a  generous  nature  that  disdains  tame  sub- 
mission to  wrongs. 

This  part  of  the  subject  is  so  imposing  as  to  enforce 
silence  even  on  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  He  dared 
not  deny  his  country's  wrongs,  or  vindicate  the  conduct  of 
her  enemy.  Only  one  part  of  his  argument  had  any,  the 
most  remote  relation  to  this  point.  He  would  not  say, 
we  had  not  a  good  cause  for  war  ;  but  insisted,  that  it  was 


SPEECHES. 


our  duty  to  define  that  cause.  If  he  means  that  this  House 
ought,  at  this  stage  of  its  proceedings,  or  any  other,  to  specify- 
any  particular  violation  of  our  rights  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others,  he  prescribes  a  course,  which  neither  good  sense  nor 
the  usage  of  nations  warrants.  When  we  contend,  let  us 
contend  for  all  our  rights ;  the  doubtful  and  the  certain  ;  the 
unimportant  and  essential.  It  is  as  easy  to  struggle,  or  even 
more  so,  for  the  whole  as  for  a  part.  At  the  termination  of  the 
contest,  secure  all  that  our  wisdom  and  valor  and  the  fortune 
of  the  war  will  permit.  This  is  the  dictate  of  common  sense  ; 
such  also  is  the  usage  of  nations.  The  single  instance  allu- 
ded to,  the  endeavor  of  Mr.  Fox  to  compel  Mr.  Pitt  to  define 
the  object  of  the  war  against  France,  will  not  support  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia  in  his  position.  That  was  an  ex- 
traordinary war  for  an  extraordinary  purpose,  and  was  not 
governed  by  the  usual  rules.  It  was  not  for  conquest,  or  for 
redress  of  injury,  but  to  impose  a  government  on  France, 
which  she  refused  to  receive  ;  an  object  so  detestable  that  an 
avowal  dared  not  be  made. 

Sir,  I  might  here  rest  the  question.  The  affirmative  of  the 
proposition  is  established.  I  cannot  but  advert,  however,  to 
the  complaint  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  when  he  was 
first  up  on  this  question.  He  said  he  found  himself  reduced 
to  the  necessity  of  supporting  the  negative  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, before  the  affirmative  was  established.  Let  me  tell 
the  gentleman,  that  there  is  no  hardship  in  his  case.  It  is 
not  every  affirmative  that  ought  to  be  proved.  Were  I  to 
affirm,  that  the  House  is  now  in  session,  would  it  be  reason- 
able to  ask  for  proof  ?  He  who  would  deny  its  truth,  on 
him  would  be  the  proof  of  so  extraordinary  a  negative.  How 
then  could  the  gentleman,  after  his  admissions,  with  the  facts 
before  him  and  the  country,  complain  ?  The  causes  are  such 
as  to  warrant,  or  rather  make  it  indispensable,  in  any  nation 
not  absolutely  dependent,  to  defend  its  rights  by  force.  Let 
him,  then,  show  the  reasons  whv  we  ought  not  so  to  defend 


SPEECHES.  5 

ourselves.  On  him  lies  the  burden  of  proof.  This  he  has 
attempted  ;  he  has  endeavored  to  support  his  negative.  Be- 
fore I  proceed  to  answer  him  particularly,  let  me  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  House  to  one  circumstance;  that  is, — that 
almost  the  whole  of  his  arguments  consisted  of  an  enumera- 
tion of  evils  always  incident  to  war,  however  just  and  neces- 
sary ;  and  which,  if  they  have  any  force,  are  calculated  to 
produce  unqualified  submission  to  every  species  of  insult  and 
injury.  I  do  not  feel  myself  bound  to  answer  arguments  of 
this  description ;  and  if  I  should  touch  on  them,  it  will  be 
only  incidentally,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  serious  refuta- 
tion. 

The  first  argument  of  the  gentleman  which  I  shall  notice, 
is  the  unprepared  state  of  the  country.  Whatever  weight  this 
argument  might  have  in  a  question  of  immediate  war,  it 
surely  has  little  in  that  of  preparation  for  it.  If  our  country 
is  unprepared,  let  us  remedy  the  evil  as  soon  as  possible. 
Let  the  gentleman  submit  his  plan  ;  and  if  a  reasonable  one, 
I  doubt  not  it  will  be  supported  by  the  House.  But,  Sir,  let 
us  admit  the  fact  and  the  whole  force  of  the  argument.  I 
ask  whose  is  the  fault  ?  Who  has  been  a  member,  for  many 
years  past,  and  seen  the  defenceless  state  of  his  country 
even  near  home,  under  his  own  eyes,  without  a  single  en- 
deavor to  remedy  so  serious  an  evil  ?  Let  him  not  say,  "  I 
have  acted  in  a  minority."  It  is  no  less  the  duty  of  the  minor- 
ity than  a  majority  to  endeavor  to  defend  the  country.  For 
that  purpose  we  are  sent  here,  and  not  for  that  of  opposition. 

We  are  next  told  of  the  expenses  of  the  war  ;  and  that 
the  people  will  not  pay  taxes.  Why  not  ?  Is  it  from  want 
of  means  ?  What,  with  1,000,000,  tons  of  shipping ;  a  com- 
merce of  $100,000,000  annually;  manufactures  yielding 
a  yearly  product  of  $150,000,000  ;  and  agriculture  of  thrice 
that  amount,  shall  we  be  told  the  country  wants  capacity  to 
raise  and  support  ten  thousand  or  fifteen  thousand  additional 
regulars  ?  No  ;  it  has  the  ability  ;  that  is  admitted ;  and 


6  SPEECHES. 

will  it  not  have  the  disposition  ?  Is  not  the  cause  a  just 
and  necessary  one  ?  Shall  we  then  utter  this  libel  on  the 
people  ?  Where  will  proof  be  found  of  a  fact  so  disgrace- 
ful ?  It  is  answered  ; — in  the  history  of  the  country  twelve 
or  fifteen  years  ago.  The  case  is  not  parallel.  The  ability  of 
the  country  is  greatly  increased  since.  The  whiskey-tax  was 
unpopular.  But  on  this,  as  well  as  my  memory  serves  me, — 
the  objection  was  not  to  the  tax  or  its  amount,  but  the  mode 
of  collection.  The  people  were  startled  by  the  number  of 
officers ;  their  love  of  liberty  shocked  with  the  multiplicity 
of  regulations.  We,  in  the  spirit  of  imitation,  copied  from 
the  most  oppressive  part  of  European  laws  on  the^  subject 
of  taxes,  and  imposed  on  a  young  and  virtuous  people  all  the 
severe  provisions  made  necessary  by  corruption  and  long- 
practised  evasions.  If  taxes  should  become  necessary,  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  the  people  will  pay  cheerfully.  It  is  for 
their  government  and  their  cause,  and  it  would  be  their 
interest  and  their  duty  to  pay.  But  it  may  be,  and  I  be- 
lieve was  said,  that  the  people  will  not  pay  taxes,  because 
the  rights  violated  are  not  worth  defending  ;  or  that  the  de- 
fence will  cost  more  than  the  gain.  Sir,  I  here  enter  my 
solemn  protest  against  this  low  and  "  calculating  avarice " 
entering  this  hall  of  legislation.  It  is  only  fit  for  shops 
and  counting-houses  ;  and  ought  not  to  disgrace  the  seat  of 
power  by  its  squalid  aspect.  Whenever  it  touches  sovereign 
power,  the  nation  is  ruined.  It  is  too  short-sighted  to  defend 
itself.  It  is  a  compromising  spirit,  always  ready  to  yield  a 
part  to  save  the  residue.  It  is  too  timid  to  have  in  itself  the 
laws  of  self-preservation.  It  is  never  safe  but  under  the  shield 
of  honor.  There  is,  Sir,  one  principle  necessary  to  make  us  a 
great  people, — to  produce  not  the  form,  but  real  spirit  of 
union  ; — and  that  is,  to  protect  every  citizen  in  the  lawful  pur- 
suit of  his  business.  He  will  then  feel  that  he  is  backed  by  the 
government ; — that  its  arm  is  his  arm  ;  and  will  rejoice  in  ita 
increased  strength  and  prosperity.  Protection  and  patriot- 


ism  are  reciprocal.  This  is  the  way  which  has  led  nations  to 
greatness.  Sir,  I  am  not  versed  in  this  calculating  policy  ; 
and  will  not,  therefore,  pretend  to  estimate  in  dollars  and 
cents  the  value  of  national  independence.  I  cannot  measure 
in  shillings  and  pence  the  misery,  the  stripes,  and  the  slavery 
of  our  impressed  seamen  ;  nor  even  the  value  of  our  shipping, 
commercial  and  agricultural  losses,  under  the  orders  in  coun- 
cil, and  the  British  system  of  blockade.  In  thus  expressing 
myself,  I  do  not  intend  to  condemn  any  prudent  estimate  of 
the  means  of  a  country,  before  it  enters  on  a  war.  This  is 
wisdom, — the  other  folly.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has 
not  failed  to  touch  on  the  calamity  of  war,  that  fruitful  source 
of  declamation  by  which  humanity  is  made  the  advocate  of 
submission.  If  he  desires  to  repress  the  gallant  ardor  of  our 
countrymen  by  such  topics,  let  me  inform  him,  that  true 
courage  regards  only  the  cause,  that  it  is  just  and  necessary  ; 
and  that  it  contemns  the  sufferings  and  dangers  of  war.  If 
he  really  wishes  to  promote  the  cause  of  humanity,  let  his  elo- 
quence be  addressed  to  Lord  Wellesley  or  Mr.  Percival,  and 
not  the  American  Congress.  Tell  them  if  they  persist  in  such 
daring  insult  and  injury  to  a  neutral  nation,  that,  however 
inclined  to  peace,  it  will  be  bound  in  honor  and  safety  to 
resist ;  that  their  patience  and  endurance,  however  great,  will 
be  exhausted ;  that  the  calamity  of  war  will  ensue,  and  that 
they,  in  the  opinion  of  the  world,  will  be  answerable  for  all 
its  devastation  and  misery.  Let  a  regard  to  the  interests  of 
humanity  stay  the  hand  of  injustice,  and  my  life  on  it,  the 
gentleman  will  not  find  it  difficult  to  dissuade  his  country 
from  rushing  into  the  bloody  scenes  of  war. 

We  are  next  told  of  the  dangers  of  war.  I  believe  we 
are  all  ready  to  acknowledge  its  hazards  and  misfortunes ; 
but  I  cannot  think  we  have  any  extraordinary  danger  to 
apprehend,  at  least  none  to  warrant  an  acquiescence  in  the 
injuries  we  have  received.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe,  no 
war  can  be  less  dangerous  to  the  internal  peace,  or  safety 


8  SPEECHES. 

of  the  country.  But  we  are  told  of  the  black  population  of 
the  Southern  States.  As  far  as  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
speaks  of  his  own  personal  knowledge,  I  shall  not  question 
the  correctness  of  his  statement.  I  only  regret  that  such  is 
the  state  of  apprehension  in  his  particular  part  of  the  country. 
Of  the  Southern  section,  I,  too,  have  some  personal  know- 
ledge ;  and  can  say,  that  in  South  Carolina  no  such  fears  in 
any  part  are  felt.  But,  Sir,  admit  the  gentleman's  state- 
ment ;  will  a  war  with  Great  Britain  increase  the  danger  ? 
Will  the  country  be  less  able  to  suppress  insurrection  ?  Had 
we  any  thing  to  fear  from  that  quarter  (which  I  do  not  be- 
lieve), in  my  opinion,  the  period  of  the  greatest  safety  is  dur- 
ing a  war ;,.  unless,  indeed,  the  enemy  should  make  a  lodg- 
ment in  the  country.  Then  the  country  is  most  on  its  guard  ; 
our  militia  the  best  prepared ;  and  our  standing  army  the 
greatest.  Even  in  our  revolution  no  attempts  at  insurrection 
were  made  by  that  portion  of  our  population  ;  and  however 
the  gentleman  may  alarm  himself  with  the  disorganizing  ef- 
fects of  French  principles,  I  cannot  think  our  ignorant  blacks 
have  felt  much  of  their  baneful  influence.  I  dare  say  more 
than  one  half  of  them  never  heard  of  the  French  revolution. 
But  as  great  as  he  regards  the  danger  from  our  slaves,  the 
gentleman's  fears  end  not  there — the  standing  army  is  not  less 
terrible  to  him.  Sir,  I  think  a  regular  force  raised  for  a  period 
of  actual  hostilities  cannot  properly  be  called  a  standing  army. 
There  is  a  just  distinction  between  such  a  force,  and  one  raised 
as  a  permanent  peace  establishment.  Whatever  would  be  the 
composition  of  the  latter,  I  hope  the  former  will  consist  of  some 
of  the  best  materials  of  the  country.  The  ardent  patriotism  of 
our  young  men,  and  the  reasonable  bounty  in  land  which  is  pro- 
posed to  be  given,  will  impel  them  to  join  their  country's  stan- 
dard and  to  fight  her  battles  ;  they  will  not  forget  the  citizen 
in  the  soldier,  and  in  obeying  their  officers,  learn  to  contemn 
their  government  and  constitution.  In  our  officers  and  sol- 
diers we  will  find  patriotism  no  less  pure  and  ardent  than  in  the 


SPEECHES.  9 

private  citizen  ;  but  if  they  should  be  depraved  as  represented, 
what  have  we  to  fear  from  twenty-five  thousand  or  thirty  thou- 
sand regulars  ?  Where  will  be  the  boasted  militia  of  the  gen- 
tleman ?  Can  one  million  of  militia  be  overpowered  by  thirty 
thousand  regulars  ?  If  so,  how  can  we  rely  on  them  against 
a  foe  invading  our  country  ?  Sir,  I  have  no  such  contemptuous 
idea  of  our  militia — their  untaught  bravery  is  sufficient  to 
crash  all  foreign  and  internal  attempts  on  their  country's  lib- 
erties. 

But  we  have  not  yet  come  to  the  end  of  the  chapter 
of  dangers.  The  gentleman's  imagination,  so  fruitful  on 
this  subject,  conceives  that  our  constitution  is  not  calculated 
for  war,  and  that  it  cannot  stand  its  rude  shock.  This  is 
rather  extraordinary.  If  true,  we  must  then  depend  upon  the 
commiseration  or  contempt  of  other  nations  for  our  existence. 
The  constitution,  then,  it  seems,  has  failed  in  an  essential  ob- 
ject, "to  provide  for  the  common  defence."  No,  says  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia,  it  is  competent  for  a  defensive,  but  not  for 
an  offensive  war.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  expose  the  er- 
ror of  this  opinion.  Why  make  the  distinction  in  this  instance  ? 
Will  he  pretend  to  say  that  this  is  an  offensive  war  ;  a  war 
of  conquest  ?  Yes,  the  gentleman  has  dared  to  make  this  as- 
sertion ;  and  for  reasons  no  less  extraordinary  than  the  asser- 
tion itself.  He  says  our  rights  are  violated  on  the  ocean,  and 
that  these  violations  affect  our  shipping,  and  commercial  rights, 
to  which  the  Canadas  have  no  relation.  The  doctrine  of  re- 
taliation has  been  much  abused  of  late  by  an  unreasonable 
extension  ;  we  have  now  to  witness  a  new  abuse.  The  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  has  limited  it  down  to  a  point.  By  his 
rule  if  you  receive  a  blow  on  the  breast,  you  dare  not  re- 
turn it  on  the  head  ;  you  are  obliged  to  measure  and  return 
it  on  the  precise  point  on  which  it  was  received.  If  you  do 
not  proceed  with  this  mathematical  accuracy,  it  ceases  to  be 
just  self-defence  ;  it  becomes  an  unprovoked  attack. 

In  speaking  of  Canada  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  intro- 


1Q  SPEECHES. 

duced  the  name  of  Montgomery  with  much  feeling  and  inter- 
est. Sir,  there  is  danger  in  that  name  to  the  gentleman's  argu- 
ment. It  is  sacred  to  heroism.  It  is  indignant  of  submis- 
sion !  It  calls  our  memory  back  to  the  tune  of  our  revolu- 
tion, to  the  Congress  of  '74  and  '75.  Suppose  a  member 
of  that  day  had  risen  and  urged  all  the  arguments  which  we 
have  heard  on  this  subject ;  had  told  that  Congress, — your 
contest  is  about  the  right  of  laying  a  tax ;  and  that  the 
attempt  on  Canada  had  nothing  to  do  with  it ;  that  the  war 
would  be  expensive ;  that  danger  and  devastation  would 
overspread  our  country,  and  that  the  power  of  Great  Britain 
was  irresistible.  With  what  sentiment,  think  you,  would  such 
doctrines  have  been  then  received  ?  Happy  for  us,  they  had 
no  force  at  that  period  of  our  country's  glory.  Had  such 
been  then  acted  on,  this  hall  would  never  have  witnessed  a  great 
people  convened  to  deliberate  for  the  general  good  ;  a  mighty 
empire,  with  prouder  prospects  than  any  nation  the  sun  ever 
shone  on,  would  not  have  risen  in  the  west.  No  ;  we  would 
have  been  base  subjected  colonies  ;  governed  by  that  impe- 
rious rod  which  Britain  holds  over  her  distant  provinces. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  attributes  the  preparation 
for  war  to  every  thing  but  its  true  cause.  He  endeavored 
to  find  it  in  the  probable  rise  in  the  price  of  hemp.  He  re- 
presents the  people  of  the  Western  States  as  willing  to  plunge 
our  country  into  war  from  such  interested  and  base  motives.  I 
will  not  reason  on  this  point.  I  see  the  cause  of  their  ardor, 
not  in  such  unworthy  motives,  but  in  their  known  patriotism 
and  disinterestedness. 

No  less  mercenary  is  the  reason  which  he  attributes  to 
the  Southern  States.  He  says  that  the  Non-Importation 
Act  has  reduced  cotton  to  nothing,  which  has  produced 
a  feverish  impatience.  Sir,  I  acknowledge  the  cotton  of 
our  plantations  is  worth  but  little ;  but  not  for  the  cause 
assigned  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  The  people  of  that 
section  do  not  reason  as  he  does  ;  they  do  not  attribute  it  to 


SPEECHES.  11 

the  efforts  of  their  government  to  maintain  the  peace  and  in- 
dependence of  their  country.  They  see,  in  the  low  price  of 
their  produce,  the  hand  of  foreign  injustice  ;  they  know  well 
without  the  market  to  the  continent,  the  deep  and  steady 
current  of  supply  will  glut  that  of  Great  Britain ;  they  are 
not  prepared  for  the  colonial  state  to  which  again  that  pow- 
er is  endeavoring  to  reduce  us,  and  the  manly  spirit  of  that 
section  of  our  country  will  not  suhmit  to  be  regulated  by  any 
foreign  power. 

The  love  of  France  and  the  hatred  of  England  have 
also  been  assigned  as  the  cause  of  the  present  measures. 
France  has  not  done  us  justice,  says  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  and  how  can  we,  without  partiality,  resist  the  ag- 
gressions of  England.  I  know,  Sir,  we  have  still  causes  of 
complaint  against  France  ;  but  they  are  of  a  different  charac- 
ter from  those  against  England.  She  professes  now  to  re- 
spect our  rights,  and  there  cannot  be  a  reasonable  doubt  but 
that  the  most  objectionable  parts  of  her  decrees,  as  far  as  they 
respect  us,  are  repealed.  We  have  already  formally  acknow- 
ledged this  to  be  a  fact.  But  I  protest  against  the  princi- 
ple from  which  his  conclusion  is  drawn.  It  is  a  novel  doc- 
trine, and  nowhere  avowed  out  of  this  House,  that  you  can- 
not select  your  antagonist  without  being  guilty  of  partiality. 
Sir,  when  two  invade  your  rights,  you  may  resist  both  or 
either  at  your  pleasure.  It  is  regulated  by  prudence  and 
not  by  right.  The  stale  imputation  of  partiality  for  France 
is  better  calculated  for  the  columns  of  a  newspaper,  than 
for  the  walls  of  this  House. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  is  at  a  loss  to  account  for 
what  he  calls  our  hatred  to  England.  He  asks  how  can 
we  hate  the  country  of  Locke,  of  Newton,  Hampden,  and 
Chatham  ;  a  country  having  the  same  language  and  cus- 
toms with  ourselves,  and  descending  from  a  common  ances- 
try. Sir,  the  laws  of  human  affections  are  steady  and  uni- 
form. If  we  have  so  much  to  attach  us  to  that  country, 


12  SPEECHES. 

potent  indeed  must  be  the  cause  which  has  overpowered 
it.  Yes,  there  is  a  cause  strong  enough  ;  not  in  that  oc- 
cult courtly  affection  which  he  has  supposed  to  be  enter- 
tained for  France ;  but  it  is  to  be  found  in  continued  and 
unprovoked  insult  and  injury — a  cause  so  manifest,  that 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia  had  to  exert  much  ingenuity 
to  overlook  it.  But,  the  gentleman,  in  his  eager  admira- 
tion of  that  country,  has  not  been  sufficiently  guarded  in 
his  argument.  Has  he  reflected  on  the  cause  of  that  admi- 
ration ?  Has  he  examined  the  reasons  of  our  high  regard 
for  her  Chatham  ?  It  is  his  ardent  patriotism,  the  heroic 
courage  of  his  mind,  that  could  not  brook  the  least  insult 
or  injury  offered  to  his  country,  but  thought  that  her  in- 
terest and  honor  ought  to  be  vindicated  at  every  hazard 
and  expense.  I  hope,  when  we  are  called  upon  to  admire, 
we  shall  also  be  asked  to  imitate.  I  hope  the  gentleman 
does  not  wish  a  monopoly  of  those  great  virtues  for  England. 
The  balance  of  power  has  also  been  introduced,  as  an 
argument  for  submission.  England  is  said  to  be  a  barrier 
against  the  military  despotism  of  France.  There  is,  Sir, 
one  great  error  in  our  legislation.  We  are  ready,  it  would 
seem  from  this  argument,  to  watch  over  the  interests  of  for- 
eign nations,  while  we  grossly  neglect  our  own  immediate 
concerns.  This  argument  of  the  balance  of  power  is  well 
calculated  for  the  British  Parliament,  but  not  at  all  suited 
to  the  American  Congress.  Tell  the  former  that  they  have 
to  contend  with  a  mighty  power,  and  that  if  they  persist 
in  insult  and  injury  to  the  American  people,  they  will 
compel  them  to  throw  their  whole  weight  into  the  scale  of 
their  enemy.  Paint  the  danger  to  them,  and  if  they  will 
desist  from  injuring  us,  we,  I  answer  for  it,  will  not  disturb 
the  balance  of  power.  But  it  is  absurd  for  us  to  talk  about 
the  balance  of  power,  while  they,  by  their  conduct,  smile 
with  contempt  at  what  they  regard  our  simple,  good-natured 
vanity.  If,  however,  in  the  contest,  it  should  be  found  that 


SPEECHES.  13 

they  underrate  us — which  I  hope  and  believe — and  that  we 
can  affect  the  balance  of  power,  it  will  not  be  difficult  for  us 
to  obtain  such  terms  as  our  rights  demand. 

I,  Sir,  will  now  conclude  by  adverting  to  an  argument  of 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  used  in  debate  on  a  preceding 
day.  He  asked,  why  not  declare  war  immediately  ?  The 
answer  is  obvious  :  because  we  are  not  yet  prepared.  But, 
says  the  gentleman,  such  language  as  is  here  held,  will  pro- 
voke Great  Britain  to  commence  hostilities.  I  have  no  such 
fears.  She  knows  well  that  such  a  course  would  unite  all 
parties  here — a  thing  which,  above  all  others,  she  most 
dreads.  Besides,  such  has  been  our  past  conduct,  that  she 
will  still  calculate  on  our  patience  and  submission,  until 
war  is  actually  commenced. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Petition  of  the  Citizens  of  Albany  to  repeal 
the  Embargo,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Kepre- 
sentatives,  May  6th,  1812. 

[NOTE. — On  the  4th  of  April,  1812,  a  bill,  on  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  President,  was  passed  by  Congress,  laying  an  embargo, 
for  sixty  days,  on  all  vessels  then  in  port,  or  thereafter  arriving.  Soon 
after  its  passage,  petitions  were  presented  from  various  parts  of  the 
Union  for  its  repeal  or  modification.  Among  these,  was  one  from  the 
citizens  of  Albany,  presented  by  Mr.  Bleecker  of  New-York,  praying 
a  repeal  of  the  act.  Motions  were  made  to  postpone  it  indefinitely, 
and  to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  On  these 
motions,  a  debate  of  considerable  interest  ensued,  involving  the  whole 
course  of  policy  recommended  by  the  Executive,  and  pursued  by  the 
majority  during  the  session.  The  principal  speakers  for  the  postpone- 
ment were,  Messrs.  Calhoun,  Rhea  of  Tennessee,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Grundy  of  Tennessee,  and  Wright  of  Maryland.  In  opposi- 


14  SPEECHES. 

tion,  were  Messrs.  Randolph  of  Virginia,  Bleecker  of  New- York,  and 
Fisk  of  Vermont.  On  the  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely,  Mr.  Calhoun 
submitted  the  following  remarks.] 

MR.  SPEAKER  : — It  is  not  my  intention  to  discuss  the 
merits  of  the  embargo  law,  or  to  follow  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  in  that  maze  of  arguments  and  assertions  through 
which  he  has  thought  proper  to  wander.  The  House  must 
be  wearied,  and  can  receive  no  additional  light  on  a  subject 
which,  through  the  zeal  of  some  gentlemen  in  opposition, 
has  been  so  frequently  dragged  into  discussion.  I  cannot 
suppose  that  our  opponents,  in  their  importunity,  are  gov- 
erned by  an  expectation  that  a  change  will  be  made  in  the 
opinions  of  any  individual  of  the  majority.  This,  they  must 
see,  is  hopeless.  The  measure  has  been  too  recently  adopted, 
and  after  too  much  deliberation,  to  leave  to  the  most  san- 
guine any  hope  of  change.  To  reply,  then,  to  the  arguments 
of  gentlemen  on  the  general  merits  of  the  embargo,  would 
be  an  useless  consumption  of  time,  and  an  unwarranted  in- 
trusion on  the  patience  of  the  House.  This,  as  I  have 
already  stated,  is  not  my  intention  ;  but  it  is  my  object  to 
vindicate  the  motion  now  under  discussion  from  unmerited 
censure,  and  to  prove  that  it  cannot  be  justly  considered  as 
treating  the  petitioners  with  contempt.  I  am  aware  that 
the  right  to  petition  this  body  is  guaranteed  by  the  Consti- 
tution, and  that  it  is  not  less  our  interest  than  our  duty  to 
receive  petitions  expressed  in  proper  terms,  as  this  is,  with 
respect. 

Two  propositions  have  been  made  relative  to  the  dis- 
position of  the  petition  now  before  us  :  one,  to  refer  it  to  a 
committee  ;  the  other — that  now  under  consideration — to 
postpone  the  further  consideration  to  a  day  beyond  the 
termination  of  the  embargo.  It  is  contended,  not  by  argu- 
ment, but  assertion,  that  the  former  would  have  been  more 
respectful  to  the  petitioners  ;  but  the  reasons  have  been  left 
to  conjecture.  I  ask,  then,  why  would  it  be  more  respect- 


SPEECHES.  15 

fill  ?  Would  it  present  stronger  hopes  of  success,  or  admit 
as  great  latitude  of  discussion  on  its  merits  ?  Gentlemen 
know  that  it  would  not ;  they  well  know,  when  the  House 
wishes  to  give  the  go-by  to  a  petition,  it  has  been  usual  to 
adopt  the  very  motion  which,  in  this  instance,  they  advocate. 
On  a  motion  of  reference,  debate  on  the  merits  is  precluded  ; 
and,  when  referred,  the  committee,  where  there  are  no  hopes 
of  success,  usually  allow  it  to  sleep.  But,  Sir,  I  ask  what  is 
the  necessity  for  referring  this  petition  to  a  committee  ? 
What  are  the  objects  of  a  reference  ?  I  conceive  them  to 
be  two  :  one  to  investigate  some  matter  of  fact,  and  the 
other  when  a  subject  is  much  tangled  with  detail,  to  digest 
and  arrange  the  parts,  so  the  House  may  more  easily  com- 
prehend the  whole.  This  body  is  too  large  for  either  of  those 
operations,  and  therefore  a  reference  is  had  to  smaller  ones. 
In  the  present  case,  neither  of  these  furnishes  a  good  reason 
for  the  reference  asked  for.  The  facts  are  not  denied,  and 
as  to  detail,  there  is  none  ;  it  ends  in  a  point — the  repeal  of 
the  embargo  law — and  it  has  been  so  argued  in  opposition. 
This  House  is  as  fully  competent  to  discuss  its  merits  now, 
as  it  would  be  after  the  report  of  any  committee,  and  the 
motion  to  postpone  admits  of  the  greatest  latitude  of  discus- 
sion on  its  merits.  This,  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  (Mr.  Randolph)  has  proved.  He  has  argued  not 
only  on  the  merits  of  the  petition,  but  on  the  embargo,  and 
almost  every  subject,  however  remotely  connected.  I  know 
that  the  motion  is  tantamount  to  that  of  rejection,  in  the 
present  instance.  In  fact,  it  has  been  vindicated  by  the 
mover  on  that  ground.  He  has  justly  said  :  as  we  cannot 
grant  the  relief  prayed  for,  we  ought  to  act  with  promptitude 
and  decision,  so  that  the  petitioners  may  know  what  to  ex- 
pect. This  motion  has  that  character  ;  it  leaves  no  expecta- 
tion where  there  can  be  no  relief.  I  know,  Sir,  we  might 
have  acted  very  differently  :  we  might  have  spun  out  the 
hopes  of  the  petitioners.  Some  may  think  that  it  would  be 


16  SPEECHES. 

sound  policy  ;  but,  in  my  opinion,  it  would  be  unworthy  of 
this  House.  Candor,  in  our  government,  is  one  of  the  first 
of  political  virtues.  Let  us  always  do  directly,  what  we  in- 
tend shall  finally  be  done. 

Since  there  can  be  no  objection  to  the  motion  now  before 
the  House,  it  remains  to  be  considered  whether  the  relief 

'  jf 

prayed  for  ought  to  be  granted.  I  am  sensible  that  the 
maxim  is  generally  correct,  that  individual  profit  is  national 
gain  ;  and  that  the  party  interested  is  the  best  judge  of  the 
hazard  and  propriety  of  a  speculation.  But  there  are  ex- 
ceptions ;  there  are  cases  in  which  the  government  is  the  best 
judge  ;  and  such  are  those  where  the  future  conduct  of  gov- 
ernment is  the  cause  of  the  hazard.  It  certainly  is  the  best 
judge  of  what  it  intends  ;  and,  in  those  cases,  where  it  fore- 
sees a  hazard,  it  ought,  in  humanity  to  the  party  interested,  to 
restrain  speculations.  Such  is  the  present  case.  Many  of 
our  merchants  labor  under  a  delusion  as  to  the  measures  of 
government  :  nor  can  this  seem  strange,  since  some  gentle- 
men, even  in  this  House,  have  taken  up  such  mistaken  views 
of  things.  With  such  conceptions  of  the  course  of  events, 
as  the  gentleman  from  New- York  (Mr.  Bleecker)  entertains, 
I  am  not  surprised  that  he  should  advocate  the  prayer  of  the 
petition.  He  believes  that  the  embargo  will  be  permitted  to 
expire  without  any  hostile  measure  being  taken  against  Great 
Britain  ;  and  that,  in  the  present  state  of  our  preparations, 
it  would  be  madness  to  think  of  war  in  sixty  days,  or  any 
short  period.  When  I  hear  such  language  on  this  floor,  I 
no  longer  wonder  that  merchants  are  petitioning  you  to  aid 
them  in  making  speculations,  which  in  a  short  time  must  end 
in  their  ruin.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  New- York,  who 
are  the  true  friends  to  the  petitioners — the  majority  who, 
foreseeing  the  hazard  to  which  they  would  be  exposed,  re- 
strain them  from  falling  into  the  hands  of  British  cruisers, — 
or  the  minority,  who,  by  suppressing  the  evidences  of  danger, 
induce  them  to  enter  into  the  most  ruinous  speculations  ? 


SPEECHES.  17 

By  the  one,  the  merchants  still  retain  their  property,  depre- 
ciated, it  is  true,  in  a  small  degree  ;  by  the  other,  it  will  be 
lost  to  themselves  and  their  country,  and  will  go  to  augment 
the  resources  of  our  enemy.  For,  Sir,  let  me  assure  the  gen- 
tleman that  he  makes  a  very  erroneous  estimate  of  our  pre- 
parations, and  of  the  time  at  which  we  will  act.  Our  army 
and  measures  are  not  merely  on  paper,  as  he  states.  And 
were  this  the  proper  time  and  subject,  it  could  be  shown  that 
very  considerable  advances  have  been  made  to  put  the  coun- 
try into  a  posture  of  defence,  and  to  prepare  our  forces  for 
an  attack  on  our  enemy.  We  will  not,  I  hope,  wait  the  ex- 
piration of  the  embargo  to  take  our  stand  against  England — 
that  stand  which  the  best  interests  and  honor  of  this  coun- 
try have  so  loudly  demanded.  With  such  a  prospect,  I  again 
ask,  would  it  be  humanity  or  cruelty  to  the  petitioners  to 
grant  their  prayer,  and,  by  relaxing  the  embargo  in  their  fa- 
vor, to  entice  them  to  certain  destruction  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Kandolph)  stated, — 
to  induce  us  to  repeal  the  embargo  law,  and  to  make  it  odi- 
ous, I  suppose,  with  the  community, — that  it  operated  less 
severely  on  the  merchant  than  on  the  farmer  and  miller.  He 
did  not  prove  very  distinctly  how  this  unequal  pressure  was 
produced.  But  I  understood  him  to  say,  that  eastern  vessels 
could  be  had  with  so  much  facility  to  make  shipments  to  any 
European  port,  and  that  flour  had  risen  so  much  already  in 
consequence  of  the  embargo,  that  the  rise  in  price  nearly 
compensated  for  the  additional  risk  and  costs  of  exportation. 
I  observe  the  gentleman  shakes  his  head  in  disapprobation 
of  the  statement.  I  suppose  I  misunderstood  him.  How- 
ever, I  could  not  mistake  the  conclusion  which  he  drew, — 
that  the  merchants,  by  eluding  the  embargo,  had  prevented 
the  depreciation  of  the  price  of  wheat  and  flour  on  hand. 
This,  Sir,  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  The  gentleman  from 
Virginia  must  know  that,  from  the  character  of  trade,  the 
profit  of  such  trade,  if  it  really  exists,  cannot  be  confined  to 
VOL.  n. — 2 


18  SPEECHES. 

the  merchant.  It  would  soon  raise  the  price  of  breadstuffs 
in  the  hands  of  the  other  classes  of  the  community,  and 
would  prove  that  his  statement  of  the  distressed  condition  of 
the  millers  and  farmers  cannot  be  correct. 

In  his  zeal  against  the  embargo,  the  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia says,  it  was  engendered  between  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Kelations  and  the  Executive.  Engendered  !  The  gen- 
tleman must  be  sensible  of  the  impropriety  of  such  language, 
as  applied  to  the  Executive,  or  a  Committee  of  this  House. 
No,  Sir,  it  was  not  engendered,  but  adopted  by  both  the  Ex- 
ecutive and  committee,  from  its  manifest  propriety  as  a  pre- 
lude to  war.  There  is  no  man  in  his  reason,  and  uninflu- 
enced by  party  feelings,  but  must  acknowledge  that  a  war, 
in  this  country,  ought,  almost  invariably,  to  be  preceded  by 
an  embargo.  The  very  persons  most  loud  against  that  mea- 
sure, would  be  the  most  clamorous  had  it  not  preceded  the 
war.  There  has  been,  Sir,  much  false  statement  in  rela- 
tion to  the  embargo.  I  remember,  when  it  was  under  dis- 
cussion on  a  former  occasion,  that  a  gentleman  then  observed, 
he  had  certain  information  that  the  French  minister  had 
been  importuning  our  government  to  stop  the  exportation  of 
breadstuifs  to  the  Peninsula.  I  know  not  whether  he  in- 
tended to  insinuate  this  as  one  of  the  causes  of  the  embargo. 
Be  it  as  it  may,  I  assert,  from  the  highest  authority,  that 
no  such  application  has  ever  been  made,  directly  or  indirectly, 
on  the  part  of  the  French  government.  The  statement  was 
of  such  a  nature  as  induced  me  to  inquire  into  its  correct- 
ness ;  and  the  result  is  such  as  I  have  declared.  I  can 
scarcely  suppose,  that  the  gentleman  intended  to  convey  the 
idea  that  French  influence  had  any  thing  to  do  with  the 
measure.  He  must  know  that  the  Executive,  as  well  as  a 
majority  of  this  body,  would  resist,  with  the  greatest  indig- 
nation, any  attempt  to  influence  the  measures  of  govern- 
ment. But  such  has  been  the  use  made  of  it  by  certain 
prints,  either  from  the  manner  in  which  it  was  connected  in 


SPEECHES.  19 

debate  with  the  embargo,  or  the  very  imperfect  and  unfair 
reports  of  the  secret  proceedings  of  Congress. 

One  would  suppose,  from  the  language  of  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia,  that  he  was  much  in  the  secrets  of  govern- 
ment. He  says,  the  plan  now  is,  to  disband  the  army  and 
cany  on  a  predatory  war  on  the  ocean.  I  can  assure  him,  if 
such  is  the  plan,  I  am  wholly  ignorant  of  it  ;  and  that, 
should  it  be  proposed,  it  will  not  meet  with  my  approbation. 
I  am  decidedly  of  opinion  that  the  best  interests  of  the  coun- 
try will  be  consulted  by  calling  out  the  whole  force  of  the 
community  to  protect  its  rights.  Should  this  course  fail, 
the  next  best  would  be  to  submit  to  our  enemy  with  as  good 
a  grace  as  possible.  Let  us  not  provoke  where  we  cannot 
resist.  The  mongrel  state — neither  war  nor  peace — is 
much  the  worst. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  told  us  much  of  the 
signs  of  the  times.  I  had  hoped,  that  the  age  of  superstition 
was  past,  and  that  no  attempt  would  be  made  to  influence 
the  measures  of  government, — which  ought  to  be  founded 
in  wisdom  and  policy, — by  the  vague,  I  may  say,  supersti- 
tious feelings  of  any  man,  whatever  may  be  the  physical  ap- 
pearances which  may  have  given  birth  to  them.  Are  we  to 
renounce  our  reason  ?  Must  we  turn  from  the  path  of  jus- 
tice and  experience,  because  a  comet  has  made  its  appear- 
ance in  our  system,  or  the  moon  has  passed  between  the  sun 
and  the  earth  ?  If  so,  the  signs  of  the  times  are  bad  in- 
deed. It  would  mark  a  fearful  retrograde  in  civilization — it 
would  show  a  dreadful  declension  towards  barbarism.  Sir, 
if  we  must  examine  the  auspices ;  if  we  must  inspect  the 
entrails  of  the  times,  I  would  pronounce  the  omens  good.  It 
is  from  moral,  and  not  from  brutal  or  physical  omens,  that 
we  ought  to  judge  ;  and  what  more  favorable  could  we  desire 
than  that  the  country  is,  at  last,  roused  from  its  lethargy,  and 
that  it  has  determined  to  vindicate  its  interest  and  honor. 
On  the  contrary,  a  nation  so  sunk  in  avarice,  and  so  corrupt- 


20  SPEECHES. 

ed  by  faction,  as  to  be  insensible  to  the  greatest  injuries,  and 
lost  to  all  sense  of  its  independence,  would  be  a  sight  more  por- 
tentous than  comets,  earthquakes,  eclipses,  or  the  whole  cata- 
logue of  omens,  which  I  have  heard  the  gentleman  from  Virgi- 
nia enumerate.  I  assert,  and  gentlemen  know  it,  if  we  submit 
to  the  pretensions  of  England,  now  openly  avowed,  the  inde- 
pendence of  this  country  is  lost — we  will  be,  as  to  our  com- 
merce, re-colonized.  This  is  the  second  straggle  for  our  lib- 
erty ;  and  if  we  but  do  justice  to  ourselves,  it  will  be  no  less 
glorious  and  successful  than  the  first.  Let  us  but  exert  our- 
selves, and  we  must  meet  with  the  prospering  smile  of 
Heaven.  Sir,  I  assert  it  with  confidence,  a  war,  just  and 
necessary  in  its  origin,  wisely  and  vigorously  carried  on,  and 
honorably  terminated,  would  establish  the  integrity  and  pros- 
perity of  our  country  for  centuries. 


SPEECH 

On  the  proposition  to* repeal  the  Non-Importation 
Act,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives, 
June  24th,  1812. 

[NOTE. — On  June  23d,  1812,  immediately  after  the  Declaration 
of  War,  Mr.  Cheves,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
reported  a  Bill,  "  Partially  to  suspend,  for  a  limited  time,  the  several 
acts  prohibiting  importations  from  Great  Britain,  her  dominions, 
colonies,  and  dependencies;  and  of  the  produce  and  manufactures 
thereof:"  which  was  read,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  Richardson  of  Massachusetts  moved  to  amend  the  first  sec- 
tion, by  striking  out  all  the  words  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  in- 
serting others  proposing  a  total  repeal  of  the  whole  restrictive 
system,  as  being  no  longer  applicable  to  the  existing  state  of  the 


SPEECHES.  21 

country.  This  proposition  was  negatived  by  a  vote  of  69  to  53,  when 
Mr.  Williams  of  South  Carolina  moved  to  strike  out  the  first  section 
of  the  Bill,  without  proposing  to  insert.  Mr.  Johnson  opposed,  and 
Mr.  Macon  supported  the  motion ;  when  the  committee  rose,  reported 
progress,  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again ;  which  the  House  refused  to 
grant.  Mr.  Richardson  then  renewed  his  motion  to  amend  ;  and  Mr. 
Williams  moved  an  indefinite  postponement  of  the  Bill.  This  latter 
motion  was  lost  by  the  same  vote,  and  the  House  adjourned. 

June  24. — The  House  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  Bill — 
Mr.  Richardson's  proposition  being  under  consideration.  It  was  sup- 
ported by  Messrs.  Pearson,  Widgery,  and  Calhoun,  and  opposed  by 
Mr.  Wright  of  Maryland,  and  finally  negatived — Ayes,  58;  Noes,  61. 

On  the  failure  of  Mr.  Richardson's  proposition,  Mr.  Goldsborough 
moved  to  amend  the  Bill,  so  as  to  permit  the  importation  of  all  goods 
not  owned  by  British  subjects.  This  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  59  to  60. 
Mr.  McKim  then  moved  to  postpone  the  Bill  to  1st  of  February,  1813 
(a  virtual  rejection),  and  the  motion  prevailed.  Mr.  Richardson,  how- 
ever, on  the  day  following,  offered  a  resolution  for  the  appointment 
of  a  Select  Committee  to  bring  in  a  Bill  to  repeal  the  Non-Importa- 
tion Act ;  which,  after  a  warm  debate,  was  lost  by  the  casting  vote  of 
the  speaker,  Mr.  Clay.] 

MR.  SPEAKER  : — I  am  in  favor  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Richard- 
son) ;  and,  as  I  differ  from  many  of  my  friends  on  the  sub- 
ject, I  feel  it  a  duty  to  present  the  reasons  that  will  govern 
my  vote.  But,  before  I  proceed  to  discuss  the  question,  I 
wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that,  to  avoid  taxes,  forms 
no  part  of  my  inducement  to  advocate  the  proposed  repeal. 
I  am  ready  to  meet  them.  We  are  at  war.  It  is  wisdom 
to  make  it  efficient ;  and  that  system  will  meet  with  my 
hearty  support  which  renders  it  the  most  so,  be  it  more  or 
less  burthensome.  I  fear  not  the  effect  of  taxes  on  the 
public  mind.  The  people  will  support  any  taxes  short  of 
oppression.  Sir,  I  am  not  disposed  to  deny  that  the  Non- 
Importation  Act  has  a  very  sensible  eifect  on  the  resources  of 
the  enemy ;  and  am  willing  to  admit,  that  restrictions  on 


22  SPEECHES. 

commerce,  as  a  means  of  annoyance,  ought  not  to  be  neglect- 
ed. I  cannot,  however,  agree  with  the  gentlemen  who  op- 
pose this  amendment,  that  a  repeal  of  this  act  would  leave 
the  trade  with  Great  Britain  unembarrassed,  or  would  afford 
a  great  relief  to  her  manufacturers.  A  state  of  war  is  itself 
a  severe  restriction  on  commerce.  The  new  and  circuitous 
channel  through  which  trade  is  compelled  to  flow  ;  the  ad- 
ditional hazard  and  expenses  incident  to  that  state  ;  and  the 
double  duties  proposed  to  be  laid  on  imports,  present  very 
serious  impediments — equal,  or  nearly  so,  to  the  Non-Impor- 
tation Act  itself.  If,  Sir,  in  some  parts  of  this  country, 
English  goods  can  now  be  had  at  60  per  cent,  on  the  invoice 
price, — as  I  have  been  informed  by  some  commercial  gentle- 
men,— by  repealing  this  act  you  will  produce  no  relaxation  ; 
for  the  expense  and  hazard  of  introduction  will,  at  least,  equal 
that  per  cent.  By  the  repeal,  the  price  of  such  goods  will 
not  sink ;  the  consumption  will  not  be  increased  ;  nor  will 
the  manufacturer  be  relieved.  We  are  in  the  habit  of  think- 
ing that  prohibition  in  law  is  prohibition  in  fact.  It  is  a 
great  mistake,  which  I  daily  see  contradicted  in  our  mer- 
chants' shops,  lined  with  English  manufactures.  So  far 
from  entirely  preventing  their  introduction,  I  believe  that 
to  prohibit  is  not  the  most  effectual  mode  to  exclude  them. 
I  venture  the  assertion  with  confidence,  that  duties  are,  at 
least,  equally  effectual.  The  greatest  commercial  pressure 
that  can  be  obtained,  I  believe,  will  be  found  in  duties  as 
high  as  the  articles  introduced  can  bear,  that  is,  as  high  as 
possible  without  smuggling.  Goods  can  be  introduced 
cheaper  (of  course  more  abundantly  and  with  a  greater  con- 
sumption) under  the  Non-Importation  Act  by  smuggling, 
than  under  such  duties.  It  is  a  fact  of  importance,  that 
smuggling  is  more  easy  under  the  former  than  the  latter  sys- 
tem ;  and,  consequently,  can  be  carried  on  at  a  less  cost. 
I  beg  the  attention  of  the  House  while  I  establish  this  point. 
The  hazard  of  smuggling  depends  on  the  laws  against  it, — 


SPEECHES.  23 

their  rigid  execution, — the  puhlic  sentiment,  and  the  in- 
terests of  the  mercantile  class  to  permit  it.  I  begin  with 
the  last,  for  it  is  the  most  important,  as  it  controls  the  others. 
Where  duties  are  not  so  high  as  to  drive  the  honest  trader 
from  the  market,  the  merchants,  as  a  body,  have  an  interest  to 
prevent  smuggling.  Goods,  so  introduced,  not  only  defraud 
the  revenue,  but  the  honest  and  regular  trader.  The  higher 
the  duty,  the  more  powerful  this  principle  ;  and  in  this  country, 
where  there  is  not  much  competition  between  many  articles 
of  foreign  supply  and  of  domestic  manufacture,  the  duties 
may  be  made  very  high.  In  this  state  of  things  every  honest 
merchant  becomes  a  vigilant  custom-house  officer,  stimulated 
by  a  sense  of  interest.  It  was  this  principle  which  made 
smuggling  unknown  to  your  laws,  previous  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  restrictive  system.  It  was  not  the  number,  or 
vigilance  of  your  officers.  They  bore  no  proportion  to  the 
extent  of  your  coast.  But  it  was  hard  to  smuggle,  where 
every  merchant  considered  each  bale  of  goods,  or  cask  of 
wine,  so  introduced,  as  so  much  loss  to  his  profit.  Very 
different  is  the  effect  of  entire  prohibition.  I  cannot  speak 
of  it  more  concisely  or  justly  than  to  say,  it  is  the  reverse. 
Under  it,  the  honest  trader  of  necessity  disappears.  The 
desperate  adventurer  supplies  his  place.  Commerce  ceases 
to  be  a  trade — a  business  of  fair  and  regular  gain ;  it  be- 
comes a  matter  of  hazard  and  adventure.  The  whole  class 
concerned  in  carrying  it  on  have  one  common  interest — to 
discover  flaws  in  your  revenue  laws,  or  elude  their  operation  ; 
to  lull  the  vigilance  of  your  custom-house  officers,  or  corrupt 
their  integrity.  Smuggling  ceases  to  be  odious.  It  is  no 
longer  the  occupation  of  an  insulated  individual,  who  care- 
fully conceals  from  all  the  world  his  violation  of  the  laws. 
No,  it  becomes  the  business  of  a  society,  of  an  entire  class  of 
men,  who  make  a  jest  of  fraud,  and  consider  ingenuity,  in 
this  lawless  occupation,  as  the  highest  honor.  The  corrup- 
tion ends  not  here  ;  its  infectious  influence  spreads  and  con- 


24  SPEECHES. 

taminates  public  opinion.  But,  Sir,  under  the  operation  of 
heavy  duties  only,  it  is  reversed.  Interest,  it  is  true,  con- 
trols opinion  in  this,  as  well  as  in  the  other  cases,  but  it  pro- 
duces the  opposite  effect.  Here  the  smuggler  is  ranked 
with  the  thief,  or  with  that  description  of  men,  who,  in 
violation  of  the  law,  live  on  the  honest  gains  of  others. 
From  the  merchant,  the  rest  of  the  community  takes  the 
impression,  and  the  smuggler  becomes  universally  odious. 
Interest  has  wonderful  control  over  sentiment.  Even  the 
more  refined  and  elevated — the  moral  and  religious  senti- 
ment— may  be  considered  as  ultimately  resting  on  it ;  not, 
it  is  true,  on  that  of  any  one  individual,  or  class  of  men,  but 
on  the  enlarged  interest  of  our  kind.  Correspondent  to 
public  sentiment  will  hfe  the  laws,  or,  what  is  of  more  import- 
ance, their  execution.  /  In  all  free  governments  the  laws,  or 
their  execution,  cannot  be  much  above  the  tone  of  public 
opinion.  Under  the  restrictive  system,  the  laws  are  either 
cried  down  for  oppression,  or  are  not  executed,  j  Under  the 
operation  of  duties  only,  the  merchant  himself  demands 
severe  laws,  and  aids  in  their  rigid  execution.  He  is  a 
party  concerned  with  his  country,  and  has  a  common  interest 
with  government.  He  sees  in  the  laws  a  friend  and  pro- 
tector, and  not  an  oppressor. 

Sir,  I  think  the  conclusion  is  strong,  that  you  cannot 
extend  your  commercial  pressure  on  the  enemy,  beyond,  or 
at  least  much  beyond,  the  operation  of  high  duties.  It 
seems  to  me  to  be  the  ultimate  point  ;  and,  if  it  is  a  fact 
that  the  double  duties  are  as  high  as  can  be  borne  (of  which 
I  pretend  not  to  have  certain  knowledge),  then,  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  Non-Importation  Act  will  not  give  much 
additional  pressure.  The  repeal,  so  far  from  relieving  the 
English  manufacturer,  will  be  scarcely  felt  in  that  country. 
It  is  by  no  means  like  a  repeal  in  peace,  and,  without  addi- 
tional burthens,  would  be  unfelt. 

But,  Sir,  I  may  be  asked,  Why  change,  why  repeal  the 


SPEECHES.  25 

Non-Importation  Act  ?  If  it  does  not  produce  any  good,  it 
will  not  much  harm.  As  it  regards  our  enemy,  I  readily 
admit  there  is  not  much  reason  for  its  repeal  or  continuation, 
I  feel  not  much  solicitude  on  that  point.  But,  Sir,  as  it 
regards  ourselves,  the  two  systems  are  essentially  different. 
In  the  one,  the  whole  gain  is  profit  to  the  adventurer  and 
smuggler.  The  honest  dealer  is  driven  out  of  employment, 
and  government  is  defrauded  of  its  revenue.  In  the  other, 
an  honest  and  useful  class  of  citizens  is  maintained  in  com- 
fort and  ease,  and  the  treasury  enriched.  Even  suppose  the 
difference  in  the  pressure  on  the  enemy  to  be  considerable, 
yet  these  incidental  advantages  ought  not  to  be  disregarded. 
I  would  not  give  up  for  revenue  what  I  suppose  to  be  a  good 
system ;  but  when  the  effects  of  two  measures  are  nearly 
equal  in  other  respects,  I  would  not  overlook  the  exchequer. 
It  is  there,  after  all,  we  will  find  the  funds,  the  sinews  of 
war.  I  know  the  zeal  and  resources  of  the  country  are 
great ;  but  we  have  not  been  in  the  habit  of  paying  taxes  ; 
we  have  no  system  of  internal  revenue  ;  and  the  nature  of 
the  country,  and  the  conflict  between  the  States  and  general 
government,  render  it  difficult,  I  may  say  impossible,  to 
originate  one  that  will  not  excite  discontent.  The  measure 
I  advocate  will  yield  you  more  additional  revenue  than  the 
whole  of  the  internal  taxes  ;  and  this  on  goods  which  would 
be  introduced  in  spite  of  your  laws.  Consider  the  relief  it 
would  afford  you.  The  internal  taxes  might,  in  a  great 
measure,  be  dispensed  with ;  or,  if  we  choose  to  give  it  to 
our  gallant  little  navy,  the  millions  thus  gained  from  com- 
merce, would  add  to  it  considerable  strength.  Bestowed  on 
our  army,  it  would  be  better  appointed,  and  enabled  to  act 
with  greater  vigor  and  promptitude.  Or,  if  you  choose  a 
different  destination,  you  might  keep  down  the  increas- 
ing volume  of  public  debt ;  a  tiling  that  ought  so  nearly 
to  interest  each  one  of  us.  The  sum  of  my  opinion 
then  is,  that  a  repeal  of  the  Non-Importation  Act  will'  not, 


26  SPEECHES. 

under  existing  circumstances,  afford  much  relief  to  the  dis- 
tresses of  England  ;  and  that  a  commercial  pressure,  equally 
sure  and  as  entire  prohibition,  and  far  more  salutary  for 
this  country,  may  be  produced  by  the  operation  of  heavy 
duties.  There  are  many  who  are  ready  to  acknowledge  the 
truth  of  this  opinion,  but  fear  that  the  effect  on  the  public 
mind  both  here  and  in  England  would  be  unfortunate. 
They  dread  a  change.  But  I  will  not  admit,  that  the  repeal 
would  be  a  material  change.  Our  fixed  determination  is  to 
resist  England.  Can  war,  can  all  the  impediments  to  trade 
incidental  to  that  state,  be  considered  a  change,  a  yielding  ? 
No,  if  they  imply  a  change,  it  is  a  wise  one — one  advancing 
from  a  lower  to  a  higher  degree  of  resistance.  We  need  not 
fear  any  evil  effect  on  public  opinion.  If  there  should  be 
any,  it  will  be  but  momentary.  Our  duty  is,  to  pursue  the 
wisest  and  the  most  efficient  measures  ; — it  is  the  duty  of 
the  people  to  understand  their  character — to  condemn  the 
pernicious,  and  to  approve  the  wise.  This  they  will  finally 
do.  Delusion  cannot  long  exist.  As  to  the  impression  on 
our  enemy,  he  will  not  find  much  relief  to  his  starving 
manufacturers  in  a  war  with  this  country.  He  will  under- 
stand the  impediments  in  the  way  of  commerce, — and  they 
present  but  little  to  encourage  his  hopes. 

But,  Sir,  I  condemn  this  mode  of  legislating,  which  does 
not  adopt  or  reject  measures  because  in  themselves  good  or 
bad,  but  because  of  some  supposed  effect  they  may  produce 
on  the  opinion  of  our  enemy.  In  all  games  it  is  hazardous 
to  play  on  the  supposed  ignorance  of  your  opponent.  In 
a  few  instances,  it  may  succeed  ;  but,  in  most,  he  sees  your 
intention  and  turns  it  against  yourself. 

Sir,  I  am  in  hopes,  if  the  measure  I  advocate  should 
succeed,  it  will  tend  to  produce  harmony  at  home.  It  will 
go  far  to  reconcile  the  mercantile  class.  Your  restrictive 
measures  have  become  odious  to  them  ;  and  though  they 
may  not  approve  the  war,  yet  they  cannot  but  respect  the 


SPEECHES.  27 

motives  which  dictated  it.  The  merchants,  I  hope,  will  come 
to  reflect  that  this  is  the  favorable  moment  to  assert  their 
rights.  The  single  fact  that  the  parts  of  the  country  most 
remote  from  the  ocean  and  least  connected  with  commerce 
have  entered  into  this  contest  for  commercial  rights  with  an 
ardor  and  .disinterestedness  which  does  them  the  greatest 
honor,  proves  it  to  be,  of  all  others  the  most  auspicious 
moment.  It  more  than  counterbalances  all  want  of  prepa- 
ration. For  it  is  more  easy  to  prepare  for  war  than  to 
obtain  union  ;  and  the  former  is  not  more  necessary  to 
victory  than  the  latter.  I  now  teU  the  commercial  gentle- 
men, if  their  rights  are  not  protected,  theirs  is  the  fault. 
With  hearty  co-operation  on  their  part,  victory  is  certain. 

It  now  remains  for  me  to  touch  on  another  and  far  more 
interesting  topic ;  one  which,  I  confess,  has  the  principal 
weight  in  the  formation  of  my  opinions  on  this  subject. 
The  restrictive  system,  as  a  mode  of  resistance,  and  a  means 
of  obtaining  a  redress  of  our  wrongs,  has  never  been  a 
favorite  one  with  me.  I  wish  not  to  censure  the  motives 
which  dictated  it,  or  to  attribute  weakness  to  those  who 
first  resorted  to  it  for  a  restoration  of  our  rights.  Though 
I  do  not  think  the  embargo  a  wise  measure,  yet  I  am  far 
from  thinking  it  a  pusillanimous  one.  To  lock  up  the 
whole  commerce  of  this  country  ;  to  say  to  the  most  trading 
and  exporting  people  in  the  world,  "  You  shall  not  trade  ; — 
You  shall  not  export ; " — to  break  in  upon  the  schemes  of 
almost  every  man  in  society,  is  far  from  weakness,  very  far 
from  pusillanimity.  Sir,  I  confess  while  I  disapprove  this 
more  than  any  other  measure,  it  proves  the  strength  of  your 
government  and  the  patriotism  of  the  people.  The  arm  of 
despotism,  under  similar  circumstances,  could  not  have 
coerced  its  execution  more  effectually,  than  the  patience 
and  zeal  of  the  people.  But,  I  object  to  the  restrictive 
system  ;  and  for  the  following  reasons  : — Because  it  does 
not  suit  the  genius  of  our  people, — or  that  of  our  govern- 


28  SPEECHES. 

mentj — or  the  geographical  character  of  the  country.  We 
are  a  people  essentially  active.  I  may  say  we  are  pre- 
eminently so.  Distance  and  difficulties  are  less  to  us  than 
any  people  on  earth.  Our  schemes  and  prospects  extend 
every  where  and  to  every  thing.  No  passive  system  can  suit 
such  a  people  ; — in  action  superior  to  all  others ; — in 
patience  and  endurance  inferior  to  many.  Nor  does  it  suit 
the  genius  of  our  institutions.  Our  government  is  founded 
on  freedom  and  hates  coercion.  To  make  the  restrictive 
system  effectual,  requires  the  most  arbitrary  laws.  Eng- 
land, with  the  severest  penal  statutes,  has  not  been  able  to 
exclude  prohibited  articles ;  and  even  Bonaparte,  with  all 
his  power  and  vigilance,  was  obliged  to  resort  to  the  most 
barbarous  laws  to  enforce  his  continental  system.  Burning  has 
furnished  the  only  effectual  remedy.  The  peculiar  geography 
of  our  country,  added  to  the  freedom  of  its  government,  greatly 
increases  the  difficulty.  With  so  great  an  extent  of  sea- 
coast  ;  with  so  many  rivers,  bays,  harbors  and  inlets  ;  with 
neighboring  English  provinces,  which  stretch  for  so  great  an 
extent  along  one  of  our  frontiers,  it  is  impossible  to  prevent 
smuggling  to  a  large  amount. 

Besides,  there  are  other  and  strong  objections  to  this 
system.  It  renders  government  odious.  People  are  not  in 
the  habit  of  looking  back  beyond  immediate  causes.  The 
farmer,  who  inquires  why  he  cannot  get  more  for  his  produce, 
is  told  that  it  is  owing  to  the  embargo,  or  to  commercial 
restrictions.  In  this  he  sees  only  the  hands  of  his  own  gov- 
ernment. He  does  not  look  to  those  acts  of  violence  and 
injustice,  which  this  system  is  intended  to  counteract.  His 
censures  fall  on  his  government.  To  its  measures  he  at- 
tributes the  cause  of  his  embarrassment,  and  in  their  removal 
he  expects  his  relief.  This  is  an  unhappy  state  of  the  public 
mind  ;  and  even,  I  might  with  truth  say,  in  a  government 
resting  essentially  on  opinion,  a  dangerous  one.  In  war  it 
is  different.  The  privation,  it  is  true,  may  be  equal,  or 


SPEECHES.  29 

greater  ;  but  the  public  mind,  under  the  strong  impulses  of 
such  a  state,  becomes  steeled  against  sufferings.  The  differ- 
ence is  great  between  the  passive  and  active  state  of  mind. 
Tie  down  a  hero,  and  he  feels  the  puncture  of  a  pin  ;  but, 
throw  him  into  battle,  and  he  is  scarcely  sensible  of  vital 
gashes.  So  in  war.  Impelled,  alternately,  by  hope  and 
fear  ;  stimulated  by  revenge  ;  depressed  with  shame,  or  ele- 
vated by  victory, — the  people  become  invincible.  No  priva- 
tions can  shake  their  fortitude  ;  no  calamity  can  break  their 
spirit.  Even  where  equally  successful,  the  contrast  is 
striking.  War  and  restriction  may  leave  the  country  equally 
exhausted  ;  but  the  latter  not  only  leaves  you  poor, — but, 
even  when  successful,  dispirited,  divided,  discontented,  with 
diminished  patriotism,  and  the  manners  of  a  considerable 
portion  of  your  people  corrupted.  Not  so  in  war.  In  that 
state  the  common  danger  unites  all ;  strengthens  the  bonds 
of  society,  and  feeds  the  flame  of  patriotism.  The  national 
character  acquires  energy.  In  exchange  for  the  expenses  of 
war  you  obtain  military  and  naval  skill,  and  a  more  perfect 
organization  of  such  parts  of  your  government  as  are  connected 
with  the  science  of  national  defence.  You  also  obtain  the 
habits  of  freely  advancing  your  purse  and  strength  in  the 
common  cause.  Sir,  are  these  advantages  to  be  counted  as 
trifles  in  the  present  state  of  the  world  ?  Can  they  be  meas- 
ured by  a  moneyed  valuation  ? 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  why  not  unite  war  and  restriction, 
and  thus  call  the  whole  energy  of  the  country  into  action  ? 
It  is  true  there  is  nothing  impossible  in  such  an  union  ;  but 
it  is  equally  true,  that  what  is  gained  to  the  latter  is  lost  to 
the  former  ;  and,  Sir,  the  reverse  is  also  true, — that  what 
is  lost  to  restrictions  is  gained  to  the  war.  My  objections  to 
restrictions  without  war,  equally  hold  against  them  in  con- 
junction with  it.  Sir,  I  would  prefer  a  single  victory  over 
the  enemy,  by  sea  or  land,  to  all  the  good  we  shall  ever 
derive  from  the  continuation  of  the  Non-Importation  Act. 


30  SPEECHES. 

I  know  not  that  it  would  produce  an  equal  pressure  on  the 
enemy  ;  but  I  am  certain  of  what  is  of  greater  consequence, 
— it  would  be  accompanied  with  more  salutary  effects  on 
ourselves.  /^The  memory  of  a  Saratoga  or  Eutaw  is  immortal. 
It  is  there  you  will  find  the  country's  boast  and  pride  :  the 
inexhaustible  source  of  great  and  heroic  actions.  But  what 
will  history  say  of  restrictions  ?  What  examples  worthy  of 
imitation  will  it  furnish  posterity  ?  What  pride,  what 
pleasure  will  our  children  find  in  the  events  of  such  tunes  ? 
Let  me  not  be  considered  as  romantic.  This  nation  ought 
to  be  taught  to  rely  on  its  own  courage,  its  fortitude,  its 
skill,  and  virtue,  for  protection.  These  are  the  only  safe- 
guards in  the  hour  of  danger.  Man  was  endowed  with  these 
great  qualities  for  his  defence.  /  There  is  nothing  about  him 
that  indicates  that  he  must  conquer  by  enduring.  He  is 
not  incrusted  in  a  shell ;  he  is  not  taught  to  rely  on  his 
insensibility,  his  passive  suffering,  for  defence.  No,  no ;  it 
is  on  the  invincible  mind  ;  on  a  magnanimous  nature,  that 
he  ought  to  rely.  Herein  lies  the  superiority  of  our  kind  ; 
it  is  these  that  make  man  the  lord  of  the  world.  It  is  the 
destiny  of  our  condition,  that  nations  should  rise  above 
nations,  as  they  are  endued,  in  a  greater  degree,  with  these 
shining  qualities./  Sir,  it  is  often  repeated,  that  if  the  Non- 
Importation  Act 'is  continued,  we  shall  have  a  speedy  peace. 
I  believe  it  not.  I  fear  the  delusive  hope.  It  will  debilitate 
the  springs  of  war.  It  is  for  this  reason,  in  part,  that  I  wish 
it  repealed.  It  is  the  fountain  of  fallacious  expectations. 
I  have  frequently  heard  another  remark,  with  no  small  mor- 
tification, from  some  of  those  who  have  supported  the  war  ; 
viz.,  that  it  is  only  by  restrictions  we  can  seriously  affect 
our  enemies.  Why  then  declare  war  ?  Is  it  to  be  an  ap- 
pendage only  of  the  Non-Importation  Act  ?  If  so,  I  disclaim 
it.  It  is  an  alarming  idea  to  be  in  a  state  of  war,  and  not 
to  rely  on  our  courage  or  energy,  but  on  a  measure  of  peace. 
If  the  Non-Importation  Act  is  our  chief  reliance,  it  will  soon 


SPEECHES.  31 

direct  our  council.  Let  us  strike  away  this  false  hope ;  let 
us  call  out  the  resources  of  the  country  for  its  protection. 
England  will  soon  find  that  seven  millions  of  freemen,  with 
every  material  of  war  in  abundance,  are  not  to  be  despised 
with  impunity.  I  would  be  full  of  hope  if  I  saw  our  sole 
reliance  placed  on  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war.  But 
if  we  are  to  paralyze  it ;  if  we  are  to  trust,  in  the  moment 
of  danger,  to  the  operation  of  a  system  of  peace,  I  greatly 
fear.  If  such  is  to  be  our  course,  I  see  not  that  we  have 
bettered  our  condition.  We  have  had  a  peace  like  a  war. 
In  the  name  of  Heaven,  let  us  not  have  the  only  thing  that 
is  worse — a  war  like  a  peace.  I  trust  my  fears  will  not  be 
realized. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Eeport  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
in  reference  to  Merchants'  Bonds,  delivered  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  Dec.  4th,  1812. 

[NOTE. — This  speech  so  fully  explains  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  delivered,  as  to  make  a  note  unnecessary.  It  will  suffice 
to  say,  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  reader,  that  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  refused  to  agree  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  by  a  vote  of  52  to  49 :  and  that,  subsequently  (Dec.  15th, 
1812),  a  Bill  was  passed  by  the  Senate,  directing  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  remit  the  forfeitures  incurred  by  the  merchants, — which, 
after  considerable  opposition,  was  finally  agreed  to  by  the  House — 
Yeas,  64;  Nays,  61.] 

MB.  CHAIRMAN  : — The  subject  now  under  discussion  was 
first  brought  to  the  notice  of  Congress,  by  the  following  para- 
graph in  the  President's  Message  at  the  commencement  of 
the  present  session  : 


32  SPEECHES. 

"  A  considerable  number  of  American  vessels,  which  were 
in  England  when  the  revocation  of  the  Orders  in  Council 
took  place,  were  laden  with  British  manufactures  under  an 
erroneous  impression  that  the  Non-Importation  Act  would 
immediately  cease  to  operate,  and  have  arrived  in  the  United 
States.  It  did  not  appear  proper  to  exercise  on  unforeseen 
cases  of  such  magnitude,  the  ordinary  power  vested  in  the 
Treasury  Department,  to  mitigate  forfeitures,  without  pre- 
viously affording  to  Congress  an  opportunity  of  making,  on 
the  subject,  such  provision  as  they  may  think  proper.  In 
their  decision  they  will  doubtless  equally  consult  what  is  due 
to  equitable  considerations  and  the  public  interest." 

So  much  of  the  message  as  has  been  just  read,  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  Their  report 
constitutes  the  subject  of  present  deliberation,  the  material 
part  of  which  is  as  follows  : 

"  On  a  view  of  the  whole  subject,  the  committee  are  of 
opinion  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  full  power  to 
remit  or  mitigate  the  penalties  and  forfeitures  incurred,  should 
an  interposition,  in  either  way,  be  called  for  by  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case ;  and,  therefore,  recommend  that  it  be 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  legislate  upon  the 
subject,  and  that  the  petitions  with  the  accompanying  docu- 
ments be  referred  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury." 

My  object  in  presenting  to  the  view  of  this  committee 
the  President's  Message  and  the  Report,  is,  to  call  their  at- 
tention to  a  total  want  of  accordance  between  them.  It  is 
almost  an  abuse  of  language  to  call  it  a  report.  A  report 
ought  to  comprehend  the  subject  of  reference,  and  be,  to  it, 
as  a  conclusion  is  to  its  premises.  On  reading  the  report 
only,  the  natural  conclusion  would  be,  that  we  were  consulted 
as  lawyers,  and  not  as  statesmen  ;  that  the  point  of  doubt, 
in  the  Executive  mind,  turned  on  the  construction  of  our 
acts,  and  not  on  what  justice,  humanity,  and  sound  policy 
demand.  The  report  informs  us,  that  the  Secretary  of  the 


SPEECHES.  33 

Treasury  has  power  to  remit  or  mitigate  the  penalties  incur- 
red ;  and,  from  this  fact,  it  draws  that  negative  proposition 
on  which  we  are  now  deliberating.  It  is  not  a  little  curious 
to  observe  how  formally  and  fully  the  committee  have  decid- 
ed on  this  power  of  the  Treasury  Department, — doubted 
neither  by  the  President  nor  Secretary, — nor,  indeed,  by  any 
one ; — while  they  overlook  those  interesting  considerations, 
towards  which  the  Executive  has  directed  the  attention  of 
Congress,  viz. : — "  What  is  due  to  equitable  considerations 
and  to  the  public  interest,"  in  relation  to  "unforeseen  cases  of 
such  magnitude."  They  are,  in  truth,  cases  of  magnitude. 
Twenty  millions  of  property  await  your  decision  ; — a  sum 
equal  nearly  to  half  of  the  annual  exports  of  this  country  ; — 
and  quite  equal  to  the  entire  export,  in  the  best  years,  of  the 
whole  country  between  Washington  and  New  Orleans.  It  is 
difficult  to  realize  magnitude  when  expressed  in  numbers 
only.  To  form  a  just  conception,  we  must  aggregate  the 
whole  annual  products  of  cotton,  rice  and  tobacco,  with  a 
large  proportion  of  the  breadstuff's  of  this  country.  I  would 
be  happy  to  know  on  what  principle  of  policy  or  reason  so 
large  an  amount  is  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  any  individual. 
Is  more  wisdom,  more  virtue,  or  public  confidence  to  be  found 
in  the  Treasury  Department,  than  in  the  assembled  represen- 
tatives of  the  Union  ?  What  constitutes  a  feature  in  this 
report,  still  more  extraordinary  and  objectionable,  is,  the 
apparent  understanding  between  the  committee  and  the 
Treasury  Department.  They  coyly  refuse  to  recommend  any 
positive  act  of  legislation ;  while  they,  indirectly,  intimate 
what  they  wish  and  expect  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to 
do  ; — or,  in  other  words,  we  are  called  on,  really  and  virtually, 
to  legislate  ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  we  are  informed  that 
it  is  improper  for  us  so  to  do.  For,  among  the  documents 
reported  by  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  as  forming 
the  basis  of  their  opinion,  is  a  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the 

VOL.   II. — 3 


34  SPEECHES. 

Treasury  of  the  23d  of  November,  which  contains  the  follow- 
ing paragraph : 

"  Upon  the  whole,  I  continue  in  the  opinion,  submitted 
with  great  deference  to  the  committee, — that  one-half  of 
the  forfeitures  which  would  otherwise  fall  to  the  collectors, 
ought  to  be  remitted  ;  but  that,  with  respect  to  the  one-half 
belonging  to  the  United  States,  justice  to  the  community  re- 
quires, that,  when  remitted,  at  least  an  equivalent  may  be 
secured  to  the  public  for  the  extra  profit  beyond  that  on 
common  importations,  which  arises  from  the  continuation  of 
the  Non-Importation  Act." 

Here,  Sir,  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary  is  explicitly  stated 
relative  to  these  unforeseen  cases  of  such  magnitude,  and  the 
conclusion  is  irresistible,  that  the  committee,  in  referring 
them  to  his  decision,  must  have  known  and  approved  of  it. 

The  true  question,  then,  before  the  committee,  is  not  to 
be  found  in  that  negative  resolution  reported  by  the  Commit- 
tee of  Ways  and  Means,' — that  it  is  inexpedient  to  legislate 
on  these  cases, — but  in  that  part  of  the  letter  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  which  I  have  just  read.  Yes,  Sir ; 
we  are  now  deliberating,  in  effect,  on  the  proposition  whether 
it  is  proper  to  exact  of  the  merchants  their  extra  profit  ; 
and  whether,  in  such  case,  this  ought  to  be  done  through  the 
agency  of  the  Treasury  Department.  I  presume  the  truth 
of  this  opinion  will  not  be  controverted  ;  should  it  be,  how- 
ever, ample  proof  will  be  found  in  almost  every  sentence  of 
the  report  of  the  speeches  of  the  gentlemen  in  support  of  it. 
They  are  literally  compounded  of  laborious  investigations  to 
ascertain  the  extra  profit  of  the  merchants  on  their  late  im- 
portations. 

Now,  Sir, — without  pretending  to  controvert  the  policy 
of  taking  extra  profit, — I  assert  that  it  cannot  be  legally  ef- 
fected through  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  It  exceeds 
his  powers.  The  Non-Importation  Act,  under  which  the  for- 
feitures accrued,  refers  to  the  Act  of  1797  to  ascertain  the 


SPEECHES.  oO 

powers  of  the  Secretary  in  relation  to  cases  of  this  kind.  On 
reference  to  that  act,  his  power  will  be  found  to  be  strictly 
a  mitigating  and  remitting  power,  and  has  for  its  object  the 
remedy  of  an  imperfection  incidental  to  all  human  laws.  The 
best  worded  act  must  comprehend  many  cases  within  the  let- 
ter, that  are  not  within  its  spirit  or  intention.  In  every  well 
regulated  government,  an  equity  exists  somewhere  to  remedy 
this  defect — to  mitigate  the  rigor  of  the  law.  The  act  of 
'97,  for  greater  security  of  the  revenue,  vests  this  power,  in 
relation  to  our  revenue  laws,  in  the  head  of  the  Treasury 
Department.  The  real  object  of  those  laws  is,  to  punish 
only  the  negligent  or  wilful  violators  ;  but,  like  other  penal 
acts,  they  are  couched  in  general  terms,  and  comprehend 
those  who  by  necessity  or  ignorance  violate  them.  That  the 
Treasury  might  be  secured,  and  the  law,  at  the  same  time, 
administered  in  its  spirit  and  intention  only,  and  not  in  its 
letter  merely,  this  power  was  delegated  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury.  To  establish  the  correctness  of  this  exposi- 
tion, I  will  read  the  Act  of  '97. 

[Here  Mr.  C.  read  the  Act] 

.  Now,  Sir,  though  I  admit,  with  the  report,  "that  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  power  to  mitigate  or  remit," 
I  do  most  unequivocally  deny,  that  he  has  legal  power  to  ef- 
fect what  is  proposed  to  be  done  by  the  committee  ; — viz.: — 
to  levy  the  extra  profit.  The  two  powers  are  essentially  dif- 
ferent. The  one  is'  of  a  judicial  and  equitable  character,  and 
has  for  its  object  guilt  or  innocence  ; — the  other  that  of  as- 
sessment or  taxation,  and  has  for  its  object,  not  guilt  or 
innocence,  but  profit.  The  latter  is  strictly  a  moneyed  trans- 
action ;  the  former  relates  to  the  administration  of  the 
penal  laws  of  the  country.  The  one  is  fully  and  faithfully 
administered,  when  due  regard  is  had  to  all  the  circumstan- 
ces as  they  constitute  guilt  or  innocence,  and  the  law  applied 
accordingly  ; — the  other,  when  a  proper  and  correct  estimate 


36  SPEECHES. 

is  made  of  the  actual  profits  of  trade,  compared  with  thoss 
on  the  late  importations,  and  the  difference  only  levied. 

The  power  of  the  Secretary,  under  the  Act  of  '97,  is  not 
arhitrary ; — to  be  exercised  or  not  according  to  his  pleasure  ; 
but  he  is  bound  to  exercise  it  according  to  the  rules  of  a 
sound  discretion.  If  guilt  appear,  he  cannot  arrest  the  law  ; 
if  innocence,  he  cannot  apply  it.  The  effects  of  the  two 
powers  strangely  mark  their  contrariety.  When  circum- 
stances of  guilt  or  innocence  only,  govern  the  Treasury  in 
the  exercise  of  this  power,  the  consequence  is,  love  and  rev- 
erence for  the  laws ; — but  if  they  are  disregarded,  and  the 
profits  of  the  merchants  only  considered,  in  the  place  of  such 
sentiments,  there  will  be  disgust  and  hatred.  You  may,  in- 
deed, have  a  full  treasury,  but  you  will  find  empty  affections. 
More  need  not  be  said,  I  hope,  to  prove  that  the  extra  pro- 
fits cannot  be  taken  from  the  merchants,  under  the  power  of 
the  Treasury  Department  to  mitigate  or  remit  forfeitures. 
If  it  be  essentially  a  taxing  power,  it  not  only  has  not  been 
delegated  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  by  the  Act  of  '97, 
but  cannot  be  by  any  act  of  ours.  It  is  a  power  which  the  con- 
stitution has  sacredly  deposited  in  Congress.  It  is  incommu- 
nicable. I  am  aware,  that  the  extra  profit  may  be  taken  under 
the  semblance  of  the  mitigating  power ; — that  the  forfeiture 
may  be  made  subject  to  its  operation.  But  this  cannot  change 
the  nature  of  the  transaction.  The  question  will  still  be, — Is 
it  a  moneyed  transaction,  or  a  fair  administration  of  the  penal 
laws  of  the  country  ?  Is  the  object  profit,  or  the  execution  of 
the  laws  ?  The  circumstances  of  the  case  will  readily  decide 
its  character.  Profit  and  justice  are  not  easily  confounded. 
It  is  not  an  unusual  thing  for  power  to  assume  a  guise  ;  and 
even  to  appear  to  be  the  very  opposite  of  what  it  really  is. 
I  impute  no  blame  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means. 
They  have  overlooked  the  character  of  the  power  which  they 
wish  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  exercise.  It  is  an  act 
of  inadvertence  ;  but  not  the  less,  on  that  account,  to  be  re- 


SPEECHES.  37 

sisted.  Precedent  is  a  dangerous  thing  ;  and  it  is  not  unu- 
sual for  executive  power,  unknown  even  to  those  who  exercise 
it,  to  make  encroachments  of  this  kind.  What  has  been  the 
end  of  all  free  governments,  but  open  force,  or  the  gradual 
undermining  of  the  legislative  by  the  executive  power  ?  The 
peculiar  construction  of  ours  by  no  means  exempts  it  from 
this  evil ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  were  it  not  for  the  habits  of 
the  people,  would  naturally  tend  that  way.  The  operation 
of  this  government  is  an  interesting  problem.  I  wish  to  see 
the  whole  in  full  possession  of  its  primitive  power,  but  all  of 
the  parts  confined  to  their  respective  spheres.  These,  Sir, 
are  my  reasons  for  rejecting  the  report  of  the  committee.  I 
know,  it  will  be  said,  that  it  is  much  easier  to  censure  than 
to  advise — to  reject  the  report,  than  to  point  out  what 
ought  to  be  done.  I  am  ready  to  acknowledge  it,  and  to 
confess,  that  I  have  felt  much  solicitude  and  difficulty  on 
this  subject.  But  the  view  which  the  committee  has  pre- 
sented, has  constituted  no  part  of  my  embarrassment.  I  am 
entirely  averse  to  taking  any  part  of  the  extra  profit,  whe- 
ther through  the  agency  of  the  Treasury  Department,  or  of 
this  House. 

If  our  merchants  are  innocent,  they  are  welcome  to  their 
good  fortune  ;  if  guilty,  I  scorn  to  participate  in  their  profits. 
I  will  never  consent  to  make  our  penal  code  the  basis  of  our 
Ways  and  Means,  or  to  establish  a  partnership  between  the 
Treasury  and  the  violators  of  the  Non-Importation  Act.  The 
necessity  of  causing  our  restrictive  system  to  be  respected, 
while  in  existence,  and  the  difficulty  of  applying  its  penal- 
ties to  " cases  of  such  magnitude"  constitute  my  embarrass- 
ment. On  the  one  hand,  if  the  law  should  be  rigidly  en- 
forced, thousands  will  be  involved  in  ruin  ;  on  the  other,  if 
an  act  of  grace  should  be  done,  your  restrictive  system  will 
be  endangered.  Had  the  conduct  of  the  merchants  been 
dictated  by  any  open  contempt  of  the  laws,  or  had  it  been 
entirely  free  from  blame,  our  course  would  have  been  plain. 


38  SPEECHES. 

No  one  would  have  hesitated,  in  the  one  case,  to  have  let  the 
vengeance  of  the  law  fall  on  the  guilty  ;  or,  in  the  other,  to 
extend  its  protection  to  the  innocent.  I  am  ready  to  ac- 
knowledge that  the  importers  were  not  sufficiently  circum- 
spect and  guarded.  The  nature  of  the  restrictive  system, 
the  posture  of  affairs,  the  decision  of  this  House  on  a  motion 
to  repeal  the  Non-Importation  Act,  ought  to  have  put  them 
on  their  guard.  Candor  also  compels  me  to  state,  that  I 
cannot  admit  any  arguments  on  this  question  to  prove  the 
impolicy  of  the  Non-Importation  Act,  or  the  advantages  to 
the  community  from  the  late  importations.  I  can  never  ad- 
mit, as  an  apology  for  the  violation  of  the  law,  what  was 
considered  as  an  insufficient  reason  for  its  suspension. 
Neither  can  I  doubt  that  even  the  worst  of  laws  ought  to  be 
respected,  while  they  remain  laws.  But,  Sir,  the  difficulty 
on  the  other  side  appears  to  me  more  formidable.  An  indis- 
criminate forfeiture  would  not,  I  fear,  be  considered  as  pun- 
ishment. It  would  be  thought  oppression.  Punishment, 
by  the  infliction  of  a  partial  evil,  proposes  to  avoid  a  greater 
— by  making  some  the  subjects  of  its  pains,  to  make  all  the 
subjects  of  its  terrors.  The  culprits,  in  this  case,  are  too  nu- 
merous for  example  ;  particularly  as  the  infraction  of  the  law 
is  of  a  doubtful  character.  This  is  by  no  means  an  unusual 
case ;  numbers  have  often  brought  impunity.  It  is  so  in 
the  worst  of  crimes,  even  in  treason,  where,  in  some  instances, 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  community  is  involved.  Some 
gentlemen  who  have  felt  this  embarrassment,  have  proposed 
to  distinguish  for  punishment  the  head  and  leaders  of  this 
infraction  of  the  law.  My  friend  from  Kentucky  (the 
Speaker)  has  designated  two  classes  to  be  favored — the  pur- 
chasers of  British  goods  before  the  2d  of  February,  1811, 
and  the  shippers  before  the  first  of  August  last ;  that  is,  be- 
fore the  declaration  of  war  had  reached  England.  The  first 
class  is  to  be  favored,  from  a  supposed  innocence  of  pur- 
chase ;  the  other,  from  innocence  of  shipments.  It  is  not 


SPEECHES.  3J> 

necessary  to  prove  the  error  of  the  discrimination.  If  true, 
it  does  not  extend  as  far  as  it  ought  to  do.  For,  if  innocence 
of  purchase  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  exemption,  how  can  we 
condemn  the  goods  purchased  before  the  first  of  August  ? 
If  shipments  might  be  made  before  that  period,  surely  pur- 
chases might ;  and  if  the  last,  then,  according  to  the  dis- 
tinction in  favor  of  purchases  before  the  2d  of  February, 
they  also  ought  to  be  exempted  from  the  forfeitures.  The 
cases,  then,  are  too  uniform  for  discrimination,  and  nothing 
remains  but  to  condemn  or  acquit  the  whole.  I  feel  myself 
compelled  to  yield  to  the  magnitude  of  the  case.  I  cannot 
find  it  in  me  to  reduce  thousands  to  beggary  by  a  single 
stroke,  nor  do  I  suppose  there  is  one  in  this  House  in  favor 
of  so  stern  a  policy.  I  am  ready  to  acknowledge  that  an  act 
of  grace  will  weaken  the  non-importation  law  ;  but  this  is 
a  less  evil  than  the  alienation  of  the  whole  mercantile  class. 
It  is  left  us  to  regret,  that  the  wise  foresight  of  my  two 
honorable  friends  and  colleagues  was  not  adopted  at  the  last 
session.  It  was  then  proposed  to  suspend  the  law  for  the 
introduction  of  this  very  property  ;  but  the  proposition  was 
borne  down  by  the  clamor  of  the  day.  Had  that  been 
done,  we  would  not  have  been  reduced  to  our  present  state. 
Our  laws  would  have  been  saved,  and  our  merchants  con- 
tented. 

A  subject  not  necessarily  involved  in  that  under  dis- 
cussion, has  been  introduced  by  those  who  have  preceded  me 
in  the  debate.  In  imitation  of  the  example,  I  will  be  ex- 
cused, I  hope,  in  offering  my  sentiments  on  the  restrictive 
system.  It  is  known  that  I  have  not  been  a  friend  to  that 
system  to  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been  carried.  My  ob- 
jection, however,  is  neither  against  the  inequality  nor  the 
greatness  of  its  pressure.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  section  to 
bear  whatever  the  general  interest  may  demand  ;  and  I,  Sir, 
am  proud  in  representing  a  people  pre-eminent  in  the  exer- 
cise of  this  virtue.  Carolina  makes  no  complaint  about  the 


40  SPEECHES. 

difficulties  of  the  times.  If  she  feel  emoarrassments,  she 
turns  her  indignation  not  against  her  own  government,  but 
against  the  common  enemy.  She  makes  no  comparative 
estimate  of  her  sufferings  with  those  of  the  other  States.  She 
would  be  proud  to  stand  pre-eminent  in  suffering,  if,  by  this, 
the  general  good  could  be  promoted  ;  and  she,  this  day,  pre- 
sents the  noble  spectacle  of  a  people  acquiring  increased 
union  and  energy  from  the  force  of  the  pressure  ;  and,  so  far 
from  growing  tired  of  the  restrictive  system,  or  war,  as  inti- 
mated by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  she  would  willingly 
bear  a  superadded  embargo,  if  the  public  interest  should  de- 
mand it.  But,  Sir,  my  objections  are  of  a  general  and 
national  character.  Your  character,  your  government  and 
country,  forbid  a  resort  to  this  system  for  a  redress  of  wrongs. 
It  requires  a  sternness  of  execution  approaching  despotism. 
It  first  offers  a  vast  premium  for  its  violation,  and  then 
has  to  combat  with  the  spirit  of  speculation,  the  cupidity 
and  capital  of  the  mercantile  classes.  To  render  its  execu- 
tion perfect,  you  must  not  only  remove  the  inducement,  but 
arrest  speculations,  particularly  those  which  are  founded  on 
the  probable  course  of  political  events.  The  subject  before 
us  is  in  point ;  and  you  will,  from  the  same  causes,  be  in- 
volved in  this  very  dilemma  annually  ;  nay,  more  frequently, 
should  the  treasury  participate  in  the  profits.  To  render 
your  system  perfect,  you  must  imitate  its  successful  execu- 
tion in  another  countiy.  Bonaparte  is  the  only  man  who 
has  a  perfect  knowledge  of  its  genius.  Burning  and  confis- 
cation are  the  only  effectual  securities.  A  partial  execution 
involves  the  most  pernicious  consequences.  The  conclusion 
is  irresistible.  The  system  does  not  suit  you.  You  are  too 
enterprising,  too  free,  and  your  coast  too  extended,  with  too 
many  indentations  of  rivers,  bays,  and  harbors.  The  effects 
of  a  few  years'  operation  will  change  your  mercantile  charac- 
ter. In  such  a  state  of  things,  the  honest  merchant  must 
retire.  He  cannot  live  ;  but  his  place  will  not  be  unoccu- 


SPEECHES.  41 

pied.  The  desperate  adventurer  and  the  smuggler  will  suc- 
ceed him.  Unaided  by  the  virtue  of  the  citizen,  no  law, 
however  severe  its  sanctions,  will  be  able  to  stem  the  torrent. 
There  is,  indeed,  one  species  of  restriction,  which,  in  a  British 
war,  ought  never  to  be  neglected.  Whatever  pressure  can 
be  produced  on  her  manufacturing  and  commercial  interests, 
through  heavy  duties,  ought  to  be  effected.  The  reason  is 
obvious  :  it  is  both  restriction  and  revenue.  So  much  of 
the  capital  of  this  country  is  turned  towards  foreign  com- 
merce, that  you  cannot  safely  neglect  this  source  of  revenue. 
Nor  is  its  restrictive  character  inconsiderable.  The  assertion 
may  seem  strange  ;  but,  in  my  opinion,  this  system  secures 
the  highest  practical  and  continued  pressure  that  can  be  pro- 
duced. To  say  nothing  of  the  perpetual  violations  of  pro- 
hibitory acts  by  smuggling,  they  are  subject  to  occasional  re- 
laxations, by  which  the  country  becomes  inundated  with 
British  goods.  At  the  end  of  the  last  session,  I  recommended 
high  duties  as  a  substitute  for  the  Non-Importation  Act.  Un- 
der that  system,  the  quantity  of  goods  imported  would  not 
have  been  greater  than  it  now  is  ;  but  your  treasury  would 
have  been  in  a  much  better  condition  ;  nor  should  we  have 
had  the  present  contest  about  extra  profits  ;  they  would  have 
passed  into  the  treasury  in  the  shape  of  duties.  High  duties 
have  no  pernicious  effects,  and  are  consistent  with  the  genius 
of  the  people  and  the  institutions  of  the  country.  It  is  thus 
we  would  combine,  in  the  greatest  degree,  the  active  resources 
of  the  country  with  pressure  on  the  manufactures  of  the 
enemy.  Your  army  and  navy  would  feel  the  invigorating 
effect.  The  war  would  not  sicken  the  patriot's  hope,  and  de- 
feat some  of  its  most  valuable  anticipated  consequences. 
You  would  have  the  means  of  filling  the  ranks  of  the  regular 
army,  and  be  no  longer  compelled  to  rely  on  the  hazardous 
aid  of  volunteers  and  militia.  Victory,  peace,  and  national 
honor, — I  was  going  to  say,  glory, — (but  experience  has 
taught  me  how  that  word  is  received  in  this  House),  would 


42  SPEECHES. 

be  the  welcomed  result  of  a  vigorous  war.  ^5ut,  Sir,  if  we 
must  have  one  or  the  other, — either  all  war  far  all  restrictions. 
— I  would  prefer  the  former.  Suppose  either  would  bring 
the  enemy  to  our  terms.  Even  in  victory  they  are  unequal. 
By  restriction,  you  have  nothing  but  the  success  ;  while  the 
assertion  of  our  national  rights  by  arms,  creates  those  quali- 
ties which  amply  compensate  for  the  privation  and  expense 
incidental  to  that  state.  Admit  that  the  Tripolitans  could 
have  been  coerced  to  terms  by  non-importation  acts,  and  that 
we  had  resorted  to  restriction  rather  than  arms,  could  we  have 
this  day  boasted  of  our  naval  victories  ?  The  Mediterranean 
war  was  the  school  of  our  naval  virtue.  It  has  elevated  the 
hopes  of  our  country.!  We  may  now  look  forward  to  the  day, 
with  confidence,  when  we  shall  be  no  longer  insulted  and  in- 
jured on  the  high  road  of  nations,  with  impunity.  Besides, 
the  non-importation  system,  as  a  redress  of  wrongs,  is  radi- 
cally defective.  You  may  meet  commercial  restrictions  with 
commercial  restrictions  ;  but  you  cannot  safely  confront  pre- 
meditated insult  and  injury  with  commercial  restrictions 
alone.  I  utter  not  this  from  the  fervor  of  my  feelings,  but 
it  is  the  deliberate  result  of  my  best  judgment.  It  sinks  the 
nation  in  its  own  estimation  ;  it  counts  as  nothing  what  is 
ultimately  connected  with  our  best  hopes — the  union  of 
these  States.  Our  Union  cannot  safely  stand  on  the  cold  cal- 
culations of  interest  alone.  It  is  too  weak  to  withstand  politi- 
cal convulsions.  We  cannot,  without  hazard,  neglect  that 
which  makes  men  love  to  be  members  of  an  extensive  com- 
munity— the  love  of  greatness — the  consciousness  of  strength. 
So  long  as  American  is  a  proud  name,  we  are  safe  ;  but  the 
day  we  are  ashamed  of  it,  the  Union  is  more  than  half 
destroyed. 


SPEECHES.  43 


SPEECH 

On  the  New  Army  Bill,  delivered  in  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives,  January  14th,  1813. 

[NOTE. — Dec.  14th,  1812.  The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs 
reported  to  the  House,  a  Bill  to  raise  twenty  additional  regiments  of 
infantry  to  serve  for  one  year,  unless  sooner  discharged.  This  Bill, 
both  in  Committee  of  the  "Whole  and  in  the  House,  had  a  very  full 
discussion,  which,  as  usual,  turned  more  on  questions  connected  with 
the  policy  and  expediency  of  the  war,  than  on  its  own  intrinsic 
merits.  Mr.  Calhoun  delivered  this  speech  near  the  close  of  the 
debate.  The  Bill  passed  by  a  vote  of  ayes,  77  ;  nays,  42.] 

MR.  SPEAKER  : — I  can  offer  nothing  more  acceptable, 
I  presume,  to  the  House,  than  a  promise  not  to  discuss  the 
Orders  in  Council,  French  decrees,  blockades,  or  embargoes. 
I  am  induced  to  avoid  these  topics  for  several  reasons.  In 
the  first  place,  they  are  too  stale  to  furnish  any  interest  to 
this  House  or  the  country.  Gentlemen  who  have  attempted 
it,  with  whatever  abilities,  have  failed  to  command  attention  ; 
and  it  would  argue  very  little  sagacity  on  my  part,  not  to 
be  admonished  by  their  want  of  success.  Indeed,  whatever 
interest  may  have  been  at  one  time  attached  to  these  sub- 
jects, is  now  lost.  They  have  passed  away ;  and  will  not 
soon,  I  hope,  return  into  the  circle  of  politics.  Yes,  Sir, 
reviled  as  have  been  our  country's  efforts  to  curb  belligerent 
injustice — weak  and  contemptible  as  she  has  been  repre- 
sented to  be  in  the  scale  of  nations,  she  has  triumphed  in 
breaking  down  the  most  dangerous  monopoly  ever  attempted 
by  one  nation  against  the  commerce  of  another.  I  will  not 
stop  to  inquire  whether  their  triumph  is  attributable  to  the 
Non-Importation  Act,  or  to  the  menace  of  war,  or,  (what  is 
more  probable,)  to  the  last,  operating  on  the  pressure  pro- 


44  SPEECHES. 

duced  by  the  former, — the  fact  is  certain  that  the  Orders  in 
Council  "of  1807  and  1809, — which  our  opponents  have 
often  said,  that  England  would  never  yield,  as  they  made  a 
part  of  her  commercial  system, — are  now  no  more.  The 
same  firmness,  if  persevered  in,  which  has  carried  us  thus  far 
with  success,  will,  as  our  cause  is  just,  end  in  final  victory. 
A  further  reason  why  I  shall  not  follow  our  opponents  into 
the  region  of  documents  and  records,  is,  that  I  am  afraid  of 
a  decoy ;  as  I  am  induced  to  believe,  from  appearances,  that 
their  object  is  to  draw  our  attention  from  the  merits  of  the 
question.  Gentlemen  have  literally  buried  their  arguments 
under  a  huge  pile  of  quotations  ;  and  wandered  so  far  into 
this  realm  of  paper,  that  neither  the  vision  of  this  House  has 
been,  nor  that  of  the  country  will  be,  able  to  follow  them. 
There  the  best  and  worst  reasons  share  an  equal  fate.  The 
truth  of  the  one,  and  the  error  of  the  other,  are  covered  in 
like  obscurity. 

Before  I  proceed  further,  I  will  make  a  few  observations 
in  reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Kandolph), 
who  spoke  yesterday.  He  complained  of  the  desertion  of 
his  former  associates  from  the  minority  principles  of  '98. 
These  principles,  he  said,  consisted  in  an  opposition  to  the 
general  government,  in  relation  to  the  States, — and  to  poli- 
tical rights,  in  relation  to  individuals. 

I  was,  at  one  moment,  almost  induced  to  suspect  the 
gentleman  of  a  desertion  of  his  own  principles  ;  for  scarcely 
had  he  finished  this  part  of  his  subject,  before  he  passed  a 
highly-wrought  eulogy  on  the  Father  of  his  Country — on  that 
man  whose  whole  life  indicated  the  strongest  leaning  on  the 
side  of  the  government  of  his  country.  I  beg  the  gentleman 
to  reflect  whether  his  definition  of  minority  principles  suits 
the  character  of  Washington's  administration  ?  and  if  not, 
with  what  propriety  both  can  be  praised  almost  in  the  same 
breath.  Whether,  indeed,  the  principles  of  '98  are  such  as 
the  gentleman  has  represented  them  to  be,  I  will  not  inquire, 


SPEECHES.  45 

because  not  necessary  to  my  argument.  But  if  they  are,  in 
truth,  those  of  the  gentleman  and  his  present  associates, 
I  should  be  happy  to  know  with  what  countenance  they 
can  request  the  people  of  tin's  country  to  put  the  government 
into  their  hands.  Trust  the  government  to  those  who  are 
hostile  to  it  !  who  prefer  their  own  interest  and  rights,  to 
its  interest  and  rights  !  If  our  opponents  are,  in  reality,  in 
favor  of  such  principles,  patriotism  ought  to  persuade  them  to 
add  one  other, — and  that  is,  ever  to  remain  in  a  minority. 
There  they  may,  perhaps,  be  of  some  use ;  at  least,  they 
will  not  be  dangerous  ;  but  put  them  in  power,  and  let  them 
act  up  to  what  they  profess,  and  destruction  would  be  cer- 
tain. If  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  is  anxious  to  know 
the  real  cause  of  the  separation  of  his  former  associates  from 
him,  he  must  look  for  it  in  his  present  political  creed,  and 
that  of  those  with  whom  he  is  now  united.  He  will  there 
find  an  article  which  had  no  place  in  his,  in  '98 ;  and  which, 
then,  as  well  as  now,  was  reprobated  by  those  who  consti- 
tute the  present  majority.  This  article  is  only  an  enlarge- 
ment of  the  minority  principles,  as  defined  by  the  gentleman ; 
— it  is,  opposition  to  our  country  in  relation  to  England. 
The  proof  of  this  article  is  of  the  same  kind,  and  no  less 
clear  than  the  others.  For,  what  encroachment  of  England 
on  our  neutral  rights,  from  the  interruption  of  our  carrying 
trade,  down  to  the  moment  that  war  was  declared — which 
one  of  the  innumerable  insults  and  injuries  to  which  we  have 
been  subjected,  has  the  opposition  either  not  palliated  or 
justified  ?  and  what  effort  of  our  country  to  resist,  which  has 
not  been  reprobated  and  opposed  ? 

I  will  not  multiply  proofs  on  a  course  of  conduct,  the 
bad  eifect  of  which  was  too  sensibly  felt  to  be  easily  for- 
gotten, and  the  continuation  of  which  was  but  too  apparent 
in  the  present  discussion.  For  what  is  the  object  of  the 
opposition  in  this  debate  ?  To  defeat  the  passage  of  this 
bill  ?  It  has  been  scarcely  mentioned  ;  and  contains  no- 


46  SPEECHES. 

thing  to  raise  that  storm  which  has  been  excited  against  it. 
The  bill  proposes  to  raise  twenty  thousand  men  only,  and 
that  for  one  year  ;  and  surely  there  is  nothing  in  that  calcu- 
lated to  lay  such  strong  hold  on  the  jealousies  or  fears  of  the 
community.  What,  then,  is  the  object  of  the  opposition  ? 
Gentlemen  certainly  do  not  act  without  an  intention  ;  and 
wide  as  has  been  the  range  of  debate,  it  cannot  Ipe  so  lawless 
as  to  be  without  an  object.  It  is  not,  I  repeat,  to  defeat  the 
passage  of  this  bill ;  no,  but  what  is  much  more  to  be 
dreaded,  to  thwart  that  which  the  bill  proposes  to  advance — 
the  final  success  of  the  war  ;  and,  to  effect  this  purpose,  I 
must  do  the  opposition  the  credit  to  say,  they  have  resorted 
to  the  most  effectual  means.  In  a  free  government, — in  a 
government  of  laws, — two  things  are  necessary  for  the  effec- 
tual prosecution  of  any  great  measure  :  the  law,  by  which 
the  executive  officer  is  charged  with  the  execution,  and 
vested  with  suitable  powers  ;  and  the  co-operating  zeal  and 
union  of  the  people,  who  are  always  indispensable  agents. 
Opposition,  to  be  successful,  must  direct  its  efforts  against 
the  passage  of  the  law  ;  or,  what  is  more  common,  and  gen- 
erally more  effectual,  to  destroy  the  union  and  the  zeal  of 
the  people.  Either,  if  successful,  is  effectual.  The  former 
would,  in  most  cases,  be  seen  and  reprobated ;  the  latter, 
much  the  more  dangerous,  has,  to  the  great  misfortune  of 
republics,  presented,  at  all  times,  a  ready  means  of  defeating 
the  most  salutary  measures.  To  this  point  the  whole  argu- 
ments of  opposition  have  converged.  This  gives  a  meaning 
to  every  reason  and  assertion  which  has  been  advanced, 
\  however  wild  and  inconsistent.  No  topic  has  been  left  un- 
touched ;  no  passion  unessayed.  The  war  has  been  repre- 
sented as  unjust  in  its  origin,  disastrous  hi  its  progress,  and 
desperate  in  its  further  prosecution.  As  if  to  prevent  the 
possibility  of  doubt,  a  determination  has  been  boldly  asserted 
not  to  support  it. 

Such  is  the  opposition  to  the  war,  which  was  admitted, 


SPEECHES.  47 

on  all  sides,  to  be  just ;  and  which,  in  a  manner,  received 
the  votes  even  of  those  who  now  appear  to  be  willing  to  ruin 
the  country  in  order  to  defeat  its  success.  For,  let  it  be 
ever  remembered,  that  the  bill  to  raise  twenty-five  thousand 
men  passed  this  House  (January,  1812)  almost  unanimously, 
though  it  was  distinctly  announced  for  what  object  it  was 
intended.  How  will  gentlemen  relieve  themselves  from  this 
dilemma  ?  Was  it  their  object  to  embarrass  the  adminis- 
tration ?  Will  they  dare  to  make  a  confession,  which  would 
so  strongly  confirm  the  motive  that  has  been  assigned  to 
them  ?  A  gentleman  from  New- York  (Mr.  Emmot)  felt 
the  awkwardness  of  the  situation  ;  and,  in  his  endeavor  to 
explain,  has  made  an  admission  which  ought  ever  to  exclude 
him  and  his  friends  from  power.  He  justified  his  vote  on 
the  ground  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  force  as  a  peace  es- 
tablishment. A  peace  establishment  of  thirty-five  thousand 
men !  [Mr.  E.  explained  that  he  did  not  mean  as  a  peace 
establishment  ;  but  that  the  posture  of  affairs,  at  that  time, 
demanded  it.]  At  any  rate  (continued  Mr.  C.),  I  hope  to 
hear  nothing  more  about  the  enormous  expense  of  the  war  ; 
since  the  principal  expense  ought  to  have  been  incurred,  in 
the  gentleman's  opinion,  even  had  it  not  been  resorted  to. 
Well  might  the  opposition  admit  the  justice  of  the  war.  For 
years  the  moderation  of  the  government  (I  might  almost 
say),  its  excessive  love  of  peace,  strove  to  avoid  the  contest. 
We  bore  all  that  an  independent  nation  could  bear  ;  not, 
indeed,  with  patience,  but  in  the  hopes  of  returning  justice 
on  the  part  of  our  enemy. 

I  cannot  omit  noticing  the  attempt  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  New- York,  to  palliate  the  conduct  of  England  in 
relation  to  one  of  the  causes  of  the  war.  I  allude  to  the 
blockade  of  1806.  The  gentleman  contended  that  it  was  a 
relaxation  of  the  law  of  nations  in  our  favor  ;  and,  of  conse- 
quence, must  be  considered  by  us  in  the  light  of  a  benefit. 
It  surely  cannot  be  necessary  to  trace  the  gentleman  through 


48  SPEECHES. 

his  laborious  discussion  on  this  point,  in  order  to  expose  the 
error  of  so  extraordinary  a  conclusion.  What  ?  That  an 
advantage  to  this  country,  which  we  have  struggled  so  much 
to  avoid  !  That  a  relaxation  on  the  part  of  England,  which 
she  has  so  obstinately  refused  to  yield  !  Flushed  with  his 
supposed  victory  on  this  subject,  the  gentleman  undertook, 
what  might  be  considered  even  a  more  difficult  task,  to 
remove  the  Orders  in  Council  as  a  cause  of  war.  Sir,  I  de- 
spair of  replying  to  such  arguments. 

But  it  is  objected,  that  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Eelations  has  stated  the  orders  of  1807,  as  a  cause 
of  war,  though  repealed  by  those  of  1809.  It  is  a  sufficient 
justification  of  the  report,  that  it  has  stated  the  facts  on 
this,  as  well  as  all  other  points,  precisely  as  they  existed ; 
and  well  might  the  report  enumerate  the  orders  of  1807  as  a 
cause  of  war,  when  those  of  1809  openly  avow  the  principles 
of  the  former,  and  only  modify  their  operation  to  the  then 
existing  circumstances.  But,  says  another  gentleman  from 
New- York  (Mr.  Bleecker),  we  were  inveigled  into  the  war  by 
the  perfidy  of  France.  She  did  not  fairly  repeal  her  decrees. 
Be  it  so  ;  and  what  then  ?  Were  we  bound  to  submit  to 
England,  because  France  refused  to  do  us  justice  ?  Have  we 
no  power  of  election  between  ruffians  ?  Where  will  the 
absurdity  of  such  arguments  end  ?  The  right  to  select  was 
perfect  in  us  ;  and,  without  reference  to  the  conduct  of 
France,  the  selection  might,  and  ought  to  have  fallen  on 
England. 

If,  Sir,  the  origin  of  the  war  furnish  no  sufficient  justifi- 
cation for  opposition  to  it,  in  vain  will  our  opponents  fly  for 
refuge  to  its  continuation.  The  Orders  in  Council,  say  they, 
are  now  no  more  ;  and  why  should  the  war  be  persisted  in, 
after  its  cause  is  removed  ?  My  reply  to  the  question  is, — 
that  it  is  continued  from  no  project  of  ambition,  or  desire  of 
conquest ;  but  from  a  cause  far  more  sacred, — the  liberty  of 
our  sailors,  and  their  redemption  from  slavery.  Yet  the  war 


SPEECHES.  49 

is  opposed — even  attempted  to  be  defeated — by  the  friends, 
connections  and  neighbors  of  these  brave  defenders  of  our 
national  rights  and  honor.  It  is  even  asked,  why  should  we 
feel  so  lively  an  interest  in  their  fate  ?  In  vain  are  such  ar- 
guments urged.  The  country  will  not  forget  its  duty, — the 
first  of  political  duties, — that  of  protection.  Our  opponents 
may  find  no  motive  in  connection  or  neighborhood  ;  but  the 
country  will  in  its  obligations.  The  friends  of  commerce 
may  evince  their  attachment  to  its  profits  and  luxuries 
only ;  but  the  government  will  not,  on  that  account,  cease 
to  respect  the  liberty  of  the  citizen,  and  the  enlarged  in- 
terests of  commerce,  by  protecting  from  English  slavery 
the  sailors,  by  whose  toil  and  peril  it  is  extended  to  every 
sea.  Provided  they  have  commerce  and  profit,  it  seems  the 
injury  and  insult  go  for  nothing  with  the  opposition.  Such 
a  commerce  may,  indeed,  bloat  the  country,  but  it  will  not 
contribute  to  its  real  strength.  It  subtracts  more  from  the 
spirit,  than  it  adds  to  the  wealth  of  the  community. 

But,  say  our  opponents,  as  they  were  opposed  to  the  war, 
they  are  not  bound  to  support  it  ;  and  so  far  has  this  opin- 
ion been  carried,  that  we  have  been  accused  almost  of  vio- 
lating the  right  of  conscience  in  denying  the  position  as- 
sumed by  gentlemen.  The  right  to  oppose  the  efforts  of  our 
country,  while  in  war,  ought  to  be  established  beyond  the 
possibility  of  doubt,  before  it  can  be  justly  adopted  as  the 
basis  of  conduct.  How  conscience  can  be  claimed  in  this 
case,  cannot  be  very  easily  imagined.  We  propose  no  Bill 
of  pains  and  penalties  ;  we  only  assert,  that  the  opposition 
experienced  cannot  be  dictated  by  love  of  country  ;  and  that 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  obligation  which  every  citizen  is 
under  to  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  republic.  Its  neces- 
sary tendency  is,  to  prostrate  the  country  at  the  feet  of  the 
enemy,  and  to  elevate  a  party  on  the  ruins  of  the  republic. 
Until  our  opponents  can  prove  that  they  have  a  right  which 
is  paramount  to  the  public  interest,  we  must  persist  in  deny- 


50  SPEECHES. 

ing  that  they  are  justified  in  their  attempts  to  thwart  the 
success  of  the  war.  War  has  been  declared  by  a  law  of 
the  land  ;  and  what  would  be  thought  of  similar  attempts  to 
defeat  any  other  law,  however  inconsiderable  its  object  ? 
Who  would  dare  to  avow  an  intention  to  defeat  its  opera- 
tion ?  Can  that,  then,  be  true  in  relation  to  war  which 
would  be  reprobated  in  every  other  case  ?  Can  that  course 
be  right,  which,  when  the  whole  physical  force  of  the  country 
is  needed,  withdraws  half  of  that  force  ?  Can  that  be  true 
which  gives  the  greatest  violence  to  party  animosity  ?  What 
would  have  been  thought  of  such  conduct  in  the  war  of  the 
Revolution  ?  Many  good  citizens,  friendly  to  the  liberty  of 
the  country,  were  opposed  to  the  declaration  at  the  time  ; 
but  could  they  have  been  justified  in  such  opposition  as  we 
now  experience  ?  To  terminate  the  war  through  discord  and 
weakness  is  a  hazardous  experiment.  But,  in  the  most  un- 
just and  inexpedient  war,  it  can  scarcely  be  possible  that 
disunion  and  defeat  can  have  a  salutary  operation.  In  the 
numerous  examples  which  history  furnishes,  let  an  instance 
be  pointed  out,  in  any  war,  where  the  public  interest  has 
been  promoted  by  divisions,  or  injured  by  concord.  Hun- 
dreds of  instances  may  be  cited  of  the  reverse.  Why,  then, 
will  gentlemen  persist  in  that  course  where  danger  is  almost 
unavoidable,  and  shun  that  where  safety  is  almost  certain  ? 

But,  Sir,  we  are  told  that  peace  is  in  our  power  without 
a  farther  prosecution  of  the  war.  Appeal  not,  say  our  oppo- 
nents, to  the  fear,  but  to  the  generosity  of  our  enemy.  Eng- 
land yields  nothing  to  her  fears  ;  stop,  therefore,  your  prepa- 
rations, and  throw  yourself  on  her  mercy,  and  peace  will  be 
the  result.  We  might  indeed  have  pardon,  but  not  peace  on 
such  terms.  They,  who  think  the  war  a  sacrilege  or  a  crime, 
might  consistently  adopt  such  a  course  ;  but  we,  who  know 
it  to  be  in  maintenance  of  the  just  rights  of  the  community, 
never  can.  We  are  further  told,  that  impressment  of  sea- 
men was  not  considered  a  sufficient  cause  of  war ;  and  are 


SPEECHES.  51 

asked,  why  should  it  be  continued  on  that  account  ?  Indi- 
vidually (said  Mr.  Calhoun)  I  do  not  feel  the  force  of  the 
argument  ;  for  it  has  been  my  opinion,  that  the  nation  was 
bound  to  resist  so  deep  an  injury,  even  at  the  hazard  of  war. 
But,  admitting  its  full  force,  the  difference  is  striking  be- 
tween the  commencement  and  the  continuance  of  hostilities. 
War  ought  to  be  continued  until  its  rational  object — a  per- 
manent and  secure  peace,  is  obtained.  Even  the  friends 
of  England  ought  not  to  desire  the  termination  of  the  war, 
without  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  subject  of  impress- 
ment. It  would  leave  the  root,  that  must  necessarily  shoot 
up  in  future  animosity  and  hostilities.  America  can  never 
quietly  submit  to  the  deepest  of  injuries.  Necessity  may 
compel  her  to  yield  for  a  moment,  but  it  will  be  to  watch 
the  growth  of  national  strength,  and  to  seize  the  first  favor- 
able opportunity  to  seek  redress.  The  worst  enemy  to  the 
peace  of  the  two  countries,  could  not  desire  a  more  effectual 
means  to  propagate  eternal  enmity. 

But  it  is  said,  that  we  ought  to  offer  to  England  suitable 
regulations  on  this  subject,  to  secure  to  her  the  use  of  her 
own  seamen  ;  and,  because  we  have  not,  we  are  the  aggres- 
sors. Sir,  I  deny  that  we  are  bound  to  tender  any  regula- 
tions. England  is  the  party  injuring.  She  ought  to  confine 
her  seamen  to  her  own  services  ;  or,  if  that  be  impractica- 
ble, propose  such  arrangements,  that  she  might  exercise  her 
right  without  injury  to  us.  This  is  the  rule  that  governs  all 
analogous  cases  in  private  life.  But  we  have  made  our  offer ; 
it  is,  that  the  ship  should  protect  the  sailor.  It  is  the  most 
simple  and  only  safe  rule.  But  to  secure  so  desirable  a 
point,  the  most  liberal  and  effectual  provisions  ought  and 
have  been  proposed  to  be  made  on  our  part,  to  guard  the 
British  government  against  the  evil  it  apprehended,  viz.,  the 
loss  of  its  seamen. 

The  whole  doctrine  of  protection,  heretofore  relied  on, 
and  still  recommended  by  the  gentleman  from  Connecticut 


52  SPEECHES. 

(Mr.  B.),  is  false  and  derogatory  to  our  honor  ;  and  under  no 
possible  modification  can  effect  the  desirable  object  of  afford- 
ing safety  to  our  sailors,  and  securing  the  future  harmony  of 
the  two  countries.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted,  that  if  governed 
by  justice,  England  would  yield  to  the  offer  of  our  govern- 
ment, particularly,  if  what  the  gentleman  from  New- York 
(Mr.  Bleecker)  says,  be  true,  that  there  are  ten  thousand  of 
her  seamen  now  in  our  service.  She  would  be  greatly  the 
gainer  by  the  arrangement.  Experience,  it  is  to  be  feared, 
however,  will  teach  that  gentleman,  that  the  evil  lies  much 
deeper.  The  use  of  her  seamen  is  a  mere  pretence.  The 
blow  is  aimed  at  our  commercial  greatness.  It  is  this  which 
has  animated  and  directed  all  of  her  injurious  councils  to- 
wards this  country.  England  is  at  the  same  time  a  trading 
and  a  fighting  nation  ;  two  occupations  naturally  at  variance, 
and  most  difficult  to  be  united.  War  limits  the  number 
and  extent  of  the  markets  of  a  belligerent — makes  a  variety  of 
regulations  necessary — and  produces  heavy  taxes,  which  are 
inimical  to  the  prosperity  of  manufactures,  and  consequently 
commerce.  These  causes  combined  give  to  trade  new  chan- 
nels, which  direct  it  naturally  to  neutral  nations.  To  coun- 
teract this  tendency,  England,  under  various,  but  flimsy 
pretences,  has  endeavored  to  support  her  commercial  supe- 
riority by  monopoly.  It  has  been  our  fortune  to  resist  with 
no  inconsiderable  success  this  spirit  of  monopoly.  Her  prin- 
cipal object  in  contending  for  the  right  of  impressment,  is  to 
have,  in  a  great  measure,  the  monopoly  of  the  sailors  of  the 
world.  A  fixed  resistance  will  compel  her  to  yield  this  point, 
as  she  has  already  done  her  Orders  in  Council.  Success  will 
amply  reward  our  exertions.  Our  future  commerce  will  feel 
its  invigorating  effects. 

But,  say  gentlemen,  England  will  never  yield  this  point, 
and  every  effort  on  our  part  to  secure  it  is  hopeless.  To 
confirm  this  prediction  and  secure  our  reverence,  the  proph- 
ecies of  the  last  session  are  relied  on.  I  feel  no  disposition 


SPEECHES.  53 

to  disparage  the  talents  of  our  opponents  in  this  line  ;  yet  I 
very  much  doubt  whether  the  whole  chapter  of  woes  has  been 
fulfilled.  I  ask,  for  instance,  whether  so  much  as  related  to 
sacked  towns,  bombarded  cities,  ruined  commerce,  and  revolt- 
ing blacks,  has  been  realized  ?  I  am  sorry  to  find  a  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  (Mr.  Sheffey)  not  yet  cured  of  his  fears 
in  relation  to  this  last  prediction.  I  would  be  glad  to  know 
what  are  his  intentions. — His  assertions  give  equal  notice  to 
the  House,  the  enemy  and  the  country.  If  danger  indeed 
exist,  he  has  acted  with  such  imprudence  as  ought  to  subject 
him  to  the  censure  of  every  reflecting  man  ;  but  I  acquit  the 
gentleman,  as  I  do  not  apprehend  any  danger.  I  cannot 
admit  an  increased  danger  from  a  state  of  war — a  state  in 
which  the  public  force  and  vigilance  are,  of  necessity,  the 
greatest.  But  to  return  to  the  point,  our  cause  is  not  so 
hopeless  as  represented  by  our  opponents.  On  the  contrary, 
if  we  only  persevere,  we  have  every  reason,  under  present 
circumstances,  to  anticipate  ultimate  success.  The  enemy 
is  engaged  in  a  contest  in  Europe,  which  requires  his  whole 
power.  We  have  already  compelled  him  to  yield  a  point, 
which,  but  the  last  year,  it  was  prophesied,  he  never 
would.  The  Orders  in  Council  are  now  no  more — that  sys- 
tem by  which  it  was  vainly  attempted  to  monopolize  our 
trade,  and  to  recolonize  the  American  people.  But  if  Eng- 
land will  not  yield,  we  can  perish  as  well  as  she.  Our 
republican  virtue  is  as  obstinate  as  her  imperial  pride,  and 
our  duty  to  our  citizens  as  unyielding,  as  her  prerogative 
over  her  subjects. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  shake  our  fortitude  by  a 
cry  of  French  alliance.  It  has  been  boldly  said,  that  we  are 
already  united  with  that  country.  We  united  with  France  ? 
We  have  the  same  cause  ?  No ;  her  object  is  dominion, 
and  her  impulse,  ambition.  Ours  is  the  protection  of  the 
liberty  of  our  sailors.  But,  say  our  opponents,  we  are  con- 
tending against  the  same  country.  What  then  ?  Must  we 


54  SPEECHES. 

submit  to  be  outlawed  by  England,  in  order  that  she  may 
not  be  by  France  ?  Is  the  independence  of  England  dearer 
to  us  than  our  own  ?  Must  we  enter  the  European  struggle 
not  as  an  equal,  consulting  our  peculiar  interest,  but  be 
dragged  into  it  as  the  low  dependant,  the  slave  of  England  ? 
The  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Randolph)  has  told 
us,  that  we  are  contending  against  religion  in  the  person  of 
England — that  she  is,  in  a  word,  the  patroness  of  Christianity. 
Unhappy  country  !  Doomed  to  submission  to  preserve  the 
purity  of  religion  !  Doomed  to  slavery,  that  England  may 
be  independent !  Because  Bonaparte  is  not  a  Protestant, 
you  must  surrender  your  rights  !  Because  he  is  a  despot, 
you  dare  not  resist !  What  does  the  gentleman  intend  ?  Is 
it  his  wish,  by  thus  dragging  into  the  heat  of  political  debate 
the  sacred  cause  of  religion,  to  promote  its  interests  or  that 
of  a  faction  ?  If  the  former,  let  him  point  out  an  instance  in 
ancient  or  modern  times  when  the  junction  of  religion  and 
politics  has  not  been  fatal  to  the  interest  of  both.  It  is  this 
unnatural  union  which  has  engendered  the  foulest  progeny  of 
human  woes.  History  is  full  of  its  disasters,  and  the  gentle- 
man is  too  familiar  with  its  pages  to  require  a  particular 
recital.  If  the  gentleman's  intention  is  not  to  advance  the 
cause  of  religion,  but  to  promote  the  views  of  a  party,  words 
cannot  truly  describe  its  real  character.  It  is  a  trick  that 
has  been,  and  still  continues  to  be  practised  on  the  too  easy 
credulity  of  our  nature.  Its  frequency,  however,  does  not 
change  its  nature  ;  it  may  indeed  furnish  some  apology,  that 
those  who  practise  it  are  led  into  it  without  due  reflection  on 
its  character  ;  but  when  understood,  what  can  be  more  shock- 
ing, than  that  this,  the  most  sacred  of  all  things,  the  medium 
of  divine  communion,  our  consolation  as  mortals,  should  be 
prostrated  to  the  gratification  of  some  of  the  worst  feelings 
of  the  human  heart  ?  Such  then  is  the  cause  of  the  war 
and  of  its  continuation  ;  and  such  the  nature  of  the  opposi- 
tion experienced,  and  its  justification.  It  remains  to  be  seen 


SPEECHES.  55 

whether  the  intended  effect  will  be  produced  ;  whether  ani- 
mosity and  discord  will  be  fomented,  and  the  zeal  and  union 
of  the  people  to  maintain  the  rights  and  indispensable  duties 
of  the  community,  will  abate  ;  or,  describing  it  under  another 
aspect,  whether  it  is  the  destiny  of  our  country  to  sink  under 
the  blows  of  our  enemy  or  not.  I  am  not  without  my  fears 
and  my  hopes. 

On  the  one  hand,  our  opponents  have  manifestly  the  ad- 
vantage. The  love  of  present  ease  and  enjoyment,  the  love 
of  gain,  and  party  zeal,  are  on  their  side.  These  constitute 
a  part  of  the  weakness  of  our  nature.  We  naturally  lean 
that  way  without  the  arts  of  persuasion.  Far  more  difficult . 
is  the  task  of  the  majority.  It  is  theirs  to  support  the  dis- 
tant but  lasting  interest  of  our  country.  It  is  theirs  to  ele- 
vate the  minds  of  the  people,  and  to  call  up  all  of  those  qual- 
ities by  which  present  sacrifices  are  made  to  secure  a  future 
good.  On  the  other  hand,  our  cause  is  not  without  hope. 
The  interest  of  the  people,  and  that  of  the  leaders  of  a  party, 
are,  as  observed  by  a  gentleman  from  New- York  (Mr.  Stow), 
often  at  variance.  The  people  are  always  ready,  unless  led 
astray  by  ignorance  or  delusion,  to  participate  in  the  success 
of  the  country,  or  to  sympathize  in  its  adversity.  .Very  dif- 
ferent are  the  feelings  of  the  leaders  of  the  opposition  :  on 
every  great  measure  they  stand  pledged  against  its  success, 
and  almost  invariably  consider  that  their  political  conse- 
quence depends  on  its  defeat.  The  heat  of  debate,  the  spirit 
of  settled  opposition,  and  the  confident  prediction  of  disas- 
ter, are  among  the  causes  of  this  opposition  between  the  in- 
terest of  a  party  and  of  the  country  ;  and  in  no  instance  un- 
der our  own  government  have  they  existed  in  a  greater  degree 
than  in  relation  to  the  present  war.  The  evil  is  deeply  root- 
ed in  the  constitution  of  ,all  free  governments,  and  is  the 
principal  cause  of  their  weakness  and  destruction.  It  has 
but  one  remedy  : — the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the  people. 
It  behooves  them,  as  they  value  the  blessings  of  their  free- 


56  SPEECHES. 

dorn,  not  to  permit  themselves  to  be  drawn  into  the  vortex 
of  party  rage.  For  if,  by  such  opposition,  the  firmest  gov- 
ernment should  prove  incompetent  to  maintain  the  rights  of 
the  nation  against  foreign  aggression,  they  will  realize  too 
late  the  truth  of  the  proposition,  that  government  is  protec- 
tion, and  that  it  cannot  exist  where  it  fails  of  this  great  and 
primary  object.  The  authors  of  the  weakness  are  common- 
ly the  first  to  take  the  advantage  of  it,  and  to  turn  it  to  the 
destruction  of  liberty. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Bill  making  further  provisions  for  filling  the 
ranks  of  the  regular  Army,  encouraging  enlist- 
ments, &c.,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, January  17th,  1814. 

[NOTE. — On  the  10th  of  January,  1814,  Mr.  Troup,  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs,  reported  to  the  House, — among  others,  a 
Bill  to  authorize  the  President  to  raise  for  five  years'  service,  or  dur- 
ing the  war,  fourteen  of  the  regiments  of  infantry  which  had  been  au- 
thorized by  the  act  of  the  29th  of  January,  1813,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses. Being  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  it  was  called 
up,  successively,  on  the  13th,  14th,  15th,  and  l*7th,  and  discussed  with 
much  warmth.  Party  feelings  were  highly  excited,  and  every  effort 
was  made  to  embarrass  the  Administration  by  defeating  the  Bill.  But 
in  vain ;  it  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading  on  January  21st,  and  final- 
ly passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  90  to  15.] 

MK.  CHAIKMAN  : — I  do  not  rise  to  examine  on  what 
terms  the  President  has  assented  to  negotiate  with  the  Brit- 
ish government ;  because  I  conceive  it  neither  pertinent  to 
the  present  question,  nor  proper  at  this  time.  I  deem  it, 


SPEECHES.  57 

however,  my  duty  to  state,  that  I  wholly  dissent  from  the 
construction  which  our  opponents  give  to  the  documents 
connected  with  this  subject.  If  a  proper  opportunity  should 
hereafter  occur,  I  will  be  happy  to  present  the  reasons  for 
my  opinion  on  this  point. 

I  am  induced  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  committee  at 
present,  to  correct  two  essential  errors,  which  gentlemen  in 
the  opposition  have  introduced  into  the  discussion  of  this 
question  ;  and,  although  not  immediately  connected  with  the 
merits  of  the  bill,  I  think  it  proper  that  they  should  be  an- 
swered ;  because,  from  all  that  I  have  ever  heard,  as  well  on 
this  as  on  former  occasions,  it  seems  to  me  that  they  consti- 
tute the  basis  on  which  the  minority  rest  their  justification. 
I  allude  to  the  character  which  they  give  to  the  war ;  and 
the  claim  set  up,  in  a  political  and  constitutional  point  of 
view,  to  justify  their  opposition.  Gentlemen  contend,  that 
this  is  not  a  defensive,  but  an  offensive  war  ;  and  under  this 
character  undertake  its  denunciation,  without  ever  conde- 
scending to  state  what,  in  their  opinion,  constitutes  the 
characteristic  difference  between  the  two.  I  claim  the  at- 
tention of  the  committee  while  I  examine  this  point  ;  and  I 
hope  that  it  will  not  be  considered  as  a  mere  verbal  criticism, 
since  our  opponents  have  made  the  distinction  the  foundation 
of  so  much  declamation  against  the  war.  The  inquiry,  in 
another  point  of  view,  I  believe,  will  be  useful.  The  people 
of  this  country  have  an  aversion  to  an  offensive  war  (which, 
I  suppose,  interprets  the  meaning  of  the  vehemence  of  the 
opposition  on  this  subject)  ;  while  they  readily  acknowledge 
the  possible  necessity  and  justice  of  one  that  is  defensive. 
It  is  therefore  proper,  that  our  ideas  on  this  point  should  be 
fixed  with  precision  and  certainty. 

I  will  lay  it  down  as  an  universal  criterion,  that  a  war  is 
offensive  or  defensive,  not  by  the  mode  of  carrying  it  on, 
which  is  an  immaterial  circumstance,  but  by  the  motive  and 
cause  which  lead  to  it.  If  it  has  its  origin  in  ambition, 


58  SPEECHES. 

avarice,  or  any  of  the  like  passions,  then  it  is  offensive  ;  but 
if,  on  the  contrary,  designed  to  repel  insult,  injury,  or  op- 
pression, it  is  of  an  opposite  character,  and  is  defensive. 
The  truth  of  this  position  will  not  require  much  discussion. 
I  conceive  that  it  may  be  safely  rested  either  on  the  authori- 
ty of  the  best  writers  on  the  subject,  or  on  its  own  internal 
evidence.  It  is  only  in  this  view  that  the  prevalent  feelings 
on  this  subject  can  be  explained.  If  the  distinction  taken 
be  a  correct  one  ;  if  the  two  species  of  war  are  distinguish- 
able in  their  cause  and  motive,  then  our  condemnation  of  the 
one  and  approval  of  the  other  is  no  longer  a  mystery  ;  it  is 
founded  in  the  nature  of  things.  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  it 
be  true  that  they  are  distinguished  by  the  mere  accidental 
circumstance  of  the  mode  of  carrying  them  on ;  that  the 
scene  of  action  should  make  them  the  one  or  the  other ;  then 
the  feelings  of  the  country,  by  which  it  condemns  or  approves 
of  either  species,  are  a  profound  mystery  never  to  be  ex- 
plained. In  the  view  which  I  have  presented,  the  difference 
between  an  offensive  and  a  defensive  war  is  of  the  moral 
kind  ;  and  that  sense  of  justice  which  marks  the  American 
people,  accounts  for  their  feelings.  Their  exemption  from 
ambition  and  love  of  justice  preserve  them  from  the  former  ; 
while  their  manly  spirit  and  good  sense  will  always  make 
them  cheerfully  meet  the  other  whenever  it  becomes  neces- 
sary. What,  then,  is  the  character  of  the  war  in  which  we 
are  now  engaged  ?  Was  it  dictated  by  avarice  or  love  of 
conquest  ?  I  appeal  to  our  opponents  for  a  decision.  They 
have  already  decided.  When  the  resolutions  of  the  gentle- 
man from  New  Hampshire  were  under  discussion  at  the  last 
session,  it  was  repeated,  till  the  ear  was  fatigued,  by  every 
one  on  that  side  of  the  House  who  took  any  part  in  the  de- 
bate, that  if  the  repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had 
been  communicated  in  time  to  the  British  government,  the 
Orders  in  Council  would  have  been  repealed  also  ;  and  had 
the  last  event  happened,  the  war  would  not  have  been  de- 


SPEECHES.  59 

clared.  They  then  have  acknowledged,  that  the  Orders  in 
Council,  and  not  the  conquest  of  Canada,  as  they  now  pre- 
tend, were  the  cause  of  the  war  ;  and  it  would  be  idle  to  in- 
quire whether,  to  resist  them,  was  in  its  nature  offensive  or 
defensive.  It  would  be  to  inquire  whether  they  were  or  were 
not  an  injury  to  our  commerce — a  point  I  have  never  heard 
denied  by  the  most  obstinate  debater.  It  would  be  equally 
so  to  examine  whether  the  cause  of  continuing  the  war, — to 
protect  our  seamen  from  impressment, — is  of  an  offensive  or 
defensive  character.  Very  few  have  the  hardihood  to  deny 
that  this  is  an  injury  of  the  most  serious  kind,  both  as  re- 
gards the  government,  and  the  unhappy  subjects  of  its  ope- 
ration. It  involves  the  most  sacred  obligation  which  can 
bind  the  body  politic  to  the  citizen  ; — I  mean  that  of  protec- 
tion, due  alike  to  all ;  to  the  beggar  in  the  street,  and  much 
more,  if  susceptible  of  degrees,  to  our  sailors,  that  class  of 
the  community  who  have  added  so  much  to  the  wealth  and 
renown  of  this  country. 

Having  thus  established  the  character  of  the  war,  in 
its  origin  and  continuance,  I  lay  it  down  as  a  rule  not  less 
clear,  that  a  defensive  war  does  not  become  offensive  by  being 
carried  beyond  the  limits  of  our  territory.  The  motive  and 
cause  will  ever  give  the  character  ;  all  the  rest  are  mere 
unessential  incidents.  When  once  declared,  the  only  question, 
even  in  a  defensive  war,  is,  how  can  it  be  carried  on  with  the 
greatest  effect  ?  The  reverse  of  this  involves  the  most  glaring 
absurdity.  It  supposes  that  we  have  determined  to  compel 
our  enemy  to  respect  our  rights ;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
voluntarily  renounced,  what  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  best 
and  most  effectual  mode  of  producing  that  effect.  On  this 
point,  as  well  as  the  cause  of  the  war,  the  opinion  of  our 
opponents  may  be  arrayed  against  themselves.  /What  have 
they  advised  as  to  the  mode  of  carrying  on  the  war  ?  With- 
draw your  troops  from  Canada,  reduce  your  army,  and  limit 
your  operations  to  the  ocean.  What !  to  the  ocean  ?  Carry 


60  SPEECHES. 

the  war  beyond  our  own  territory  !  make  it  offensive  !  The 
gentlemen  surely  do  not  intend  to  support  an  offensive  war  ? 
To  use  their  own  language,  it  is  too  immoral  for  a  virtuous 
and  religious  people.  It  is  then  admitted  that  it  does  not 
cease  to  be  defensive  by  its  being  waged  at  sea ;  how  then 
can  the  carrying  it  into  Canada  change  its  character  ?/  I 
again  remark  that  it  is  a  mere  question  of  expediency  where 
and  h6w  the  war  ought  to  be  prosecuted.  For  my  part,  so 
long  as  it  continues^ I  think  no  effort  should  be  spared  to 
reduce  Canada.'  Should  success  accompany  our  arms,  we 
will  be  indemnified  for  the  privations  and  expenses  of  the 
war,  by  the  acquisition  of  an  extensive  and  valuable  territory, 
and  by  the  permanent  peace  and  security  which  it  would 
afford  to  a  large  portion  of  our  country ;  and,  even  in  the 
worst  event,  should  we  fail  of  conquest,  the  attempt  will  not 
be  without  great  advantages.  The  war  in  Canada  is  the 
best  security  to  every  part  of  our  country.  We  have  a  very 
extended,  and,  from  the  thinness  of  the  population,  in  many 
places  weak,  sea-coast.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  has  been 
neglected,  as  has  been  represented  by  the  gentleman  from 
New  Hampshire  ;  but  I  do  believe  that  many  points  are, 
and  must,  from  necessity,  be  without  efficient  protection.  Let 
me,  however,  ask  that  gentleman,  how  it  happens  that  this 
coast,  so  easily  assailed  by  a  maritime  power,  has  sustained 
little  or  no  damage,  in  a  war  that  has  continued  upwards  of 
eighteen  months.  If  he  is  at  a  loss  for  an  answer,  the 
scheme  of  his  political  friend  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Sheffey), 
to  confine  our  troops  to  the  defensive,  should  it  be  adopted, 
would,  in  the  next  summer,  amply  explain  the  fact.  The 
truth  is,  that  the  war  in  Canada  is  the  security  of  the  coast. 
It  compels  the  enemy  to  concentrate  the  whole  of  his  dispo- 
sable force  there,  for  the  defence  of  his  own  territory.  Should 
the  absurd  policy  be  adopted  of  confining  the  operations  of 
our  troops  within  our  own  limits,  the  whole  of  the  enemy's 
force  in  Canada  will  be  liberated  from  its  defence,  and  the 


SPEECHES.  61 

entire  line  of  our  sea-coast  menaced  with  destruction.  The 
enemy,  master  on  the  ocean,  could  act  with  such  celerity, 
that  it  would  be  either  impossible  to  defend  ourselves,  or  it 
must  be  done  at  an  expense  greater  than  would  be  necessary 
to  reduce  his  possessions.  Thus,  even  under  this  limited 
view  of  defence,  the  most  effectual  mode  is  that  which  has 
been  adopted  :  to  carry  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country  ; 
and  our  opponents  ought,  according  to  their  own  distinction, 
to  grant  every  aid  in  men  and  money. 

Although  not  immediately  in  point,  I  cannot  refrain  from 
observing  that,  of  all  the  arguments  I  have  ever  heard  since 
I  have  had  the  honor  of  a  seat  in  this  House,  those  were  by 
far  the  most  extravagant,  which  have  been  urged  against  the 
conquest  of  Canada.  I  have  heard  it  characterized  by  even* 
epithet  of  crime  or  weakness.  The  advancers  of  such  argu- 
ments surely  do  not  reflect,  that  in  their  zeal  to  assail  the 
majority,  they  are  uttering  libels  on  the  founders  of  our 
freedom  and  independence.  This  scheme  of  conquest,  this 
project  of  ambition,  this  offspring  of  folly  and  vice,  as  it  has 
been  liberally  called,  originated  with  those  men  to  whom 
America  owes  so  much,  and  whose  wisdom  and  virtue  is 
acknowledged  by  the  world.  It  was  by  them  thought  an 
object  worthy  the  expense  of  the  treasures  and  the  best  blood 
of  the  country  ;  and  finally  relinquished  by  them  with  reluc- 
tance, and  from  necessity  only. 

It  now  remains  to  consider  the  defence  which  gentlemen 
have  made  for  their  opposition  to  the  war  and  the  policy  of 
their  country, — a  subject  which  I  conceive  to  be  of  the  greatest 
importance,  not  only  as  affecting  the  result  of  the  present 
contest,  but  our  lasting  peace  and  prosperity.  They  as 
sume  as  a  fact,  that  opposition  is  in  its  nature  harmless  ; 
and  that  the  calamities  which  have  afflicted  free  states, 
have  originated  in  the  blunders  and  folly  of  the  government, 
and  not  from  the  perverseness  of  opposition.  Opposition, 
say  they,  is  a  very  convenient  thing ;  a  wicked  and  foolish 


62  SPEECHES. 

administration  never  fail  to  attribute  all  of  their  miscarriages 
to  it ;  and,  in  support  of  this  doctrine,  they  appeal  to  Lord 
North's  administration.  I  do  not  intend  to  examine  the 
particular  case,  to  which  gentlemen  have,  with  so  much 
parade  referred,  as  it  is  not  in  the  course  of  my  argument ;  but 
I  think  it  could  be  easily  proved,  that  the  opposition  in 
the  case  cited,  was  essentially  different,  in  character  and 
consequence,  from  the  opposition  in  this  country.  I  conceive, 
however,  that  it  will  be  proper,  before  I  examine  the  general 
position  taken  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  to  make  a 
single  remark  in  relation  to  the  British  government  on  this 
subject.  It  strikes  me,  that  all  arguments  drawn  from  it, 
on  this  point,  must  be  essentially  erroneous.  A  more  deter- 
mined and  vehement  opposition  there  is  not  only  justifiable, 
but  in  some  measure  required.  The  difference  in  the  two 
governments,  in  this  respect,  results  from  a  difference  in  the 
organization  of  their  respective  executives.  In  England, 
such  is  the  power,  patronage,  and  consequent  influence,  of 
the  executive  ;  such  the  veneration,  which  its  hereditary 
quality  and  long  descent  possess  over  the  subjects  of  that 
empire,  that  her  most  enlightened  statesmen  have  ever 
thought  that  it  endangered  the  other  branches  of  her  govern- 
ment, and  have,  with  much  wisdom,  ever  since  the  dawn  of 
liberty  in  that  country,  strenuously  opposed  its  encroach- 
ments. Very  different  is  the  case  here,  in  a  government 
purely  republican.  Our  Executive  presents  neither  the  cause 
to  justify  such  vehemence  of  opposition,  nor  possesses  the 
means  of  restraining  it  when  excited.  But,  even  as  applied 
to  our  government,  I  will  readily  acknowledge  that  there  is 
a  species  of  opposition  both  innocent  and  useful.  Opposition 
simply  implies  contrariety  of  opinion ;  and,  when  used  in 
the  abstract,  admits  of  neither  censure  nor  praise.  It  cannot 
be  said  to  be  either  good  or  bad  ;  useful  or  pernicious.  It  is 
not  from  itself,  but  from  the  connected  circumstances,  that 
it  derives  its  character.  When  it  is  simply  the  result  of  that 


SPEECHES.  63 

diversity  in  the  structure  of  our  intellect,  which  conducts  to 
different  conclusions  on  the  same  subject,  and  is  confined 
within  those  bounds  which  love  of  country  and  political 
honesty  prescribe,  it  is  one  of  the  most  useful  guardians  of 
liberty.  It  excites  gentle  collision ;  prompts  to  due  vigilance, — 
a  quality  so  indispensable,  and,  at  the  same  time,  so  opposite 
to  our  nature, — and  results  in  the  establishment  of  an  enlight- 
ened policy  and  useful  laws.  Such  are  its  equalities  when 
united  with  patriotism  and  moderation.  xBut,  in  many 
instances,  it  assumes  a  far  different  character.  Combined 
with  faction  and  ambition,  it  bursts  those  limits,  within 
which  it  may  usefully  act,  and  becomes  the  first  of  political 
evils.)  If,  Sir,  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House 
intended  to  include  this  last  species  of  opposition,  as  I  am 
warranted  in  inferring  they  did,  from  their  expressions  when 
they  spoke  of  its  harmless  character,  then  have  they  made  an 
assertion  in  direct  contradiction  to  reason,  experience,  and 
all  history.  A  factious  opposition  is  compounded  of  such 
elements  that  no  reflecting  man  will  ever  consider  it  as 
harmlesSj/The  fiercest  and  most  ungovernable  passions  of 
our  nature — ambition,  pride,  rivalry,  and  hate — enter  into 
its  dangerous  composition  ;  made  still  more  so  by  its  power 
of  delusion,  by  which  its  projects  against  government  are 
covered  in  most  instances,  even  to  the  eyes  of  its  victims,  by 
the  specious  show  of  patriotism.  Thus  constituted,  who  can 
estimate  its  force  ?  Where  can  benevolent  and  social  feel- 
ings be  found  sufficiently  strong  to  counteract  its  progress  ? 
Is  love  of  country  ?  Alas  !  the  attachment  to  a  party  be- 
comes stronger  than  that  to  our  country.  A  factious  oppo- 
sition sickens  at  the  sight  of  the  prosperity  and  success  of 
the  country.  Wide-spread  adversity  is  its  life  ;  general 
prosperity  its  death.  Nor  is  it  only  over  oj*r  moral  senti- 
ments that  this  bane  of  freedom  triumphs.  Even  the  selfish 
passions  of  our  nature,  planted  in  our  bosom  for  our  individual 
safety,  afford  no  obstacle  to  its  progress."  It  is  this  opposi- 


SPEECHES. 


tion,  which  gentlemen  call  harmless,  and  treat  with  so  much 
respect  ;  it  is  this  moral  treason,  to  use  the  language  of  my 
friend  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy),  which  has,  in  all  ages 
and  countries,  ever  proved  the  most  deadly  foe  to  freedom. 
Nor  is  it  then  only  dangerous  when  it  breaks  forth  into  open 
treason  and  rebellion.  Without  resort  to  violence,  it  is 
able,  in  a  thousand  ways,  to  counteract  and  deaden  all  the 
motions  of  government,  to  render  its  policy  wavering,  and 
to  compel  it  to  submit  to  schemes  of  aggrandizement  on  the 
part  of  other  governments  ;  or,  if  resistance  be  determined  on, 
to  render  it  feeble  and  ineffectual.  Do  gentlemen  ask  for 
instances  ?  Unhappily  they  are  but  too  numerous.  Where 
can  they  not  be  found  ?  Admired  and  lamented  republics 
of  antiquity  !  Athens,  Carthage,  and  Home,  you  are  the 
victims  and  witnesses  of  the  fell  spirit  of  factious  opposition  ! 
Fatal  fields  of  Zama  and  Cheronaea,  you  can  attest  its  de- 
structive cruelty !  What  is  the  history  of  Polybius,  and 
that  of  the  other  historians  of  the  free  states  of  antiquity  ? 
what  the  political  speeches  of  Cicero  and  the  orations  of 
Demosthenes,  those  models  of  eloquence  and  wisdom,  but 
volumes  of  evidence,  attesting  that  an  opposition  founded 
in  faction,  unrestrained  by  moderation  and  a  regard  to  the 
general  welfare,  is  the  most  dangerous  of  political  evils.  Nor 
does  antiquity  alone  testify.  The  history  of  modern  times 
is  pregnant  with  examples.  What,  I  would  ask,  has  be- 
come of  the  free  states  of  modern  Italy,  which  once  flourished 
in  wealth  and  power — Florence,  Genoa,  Venice,  and  many 
others  ?  what  of  the  United  Provinces  and  Switzerland  ? 
Gone  ;  perished  under  the  deadly  feuds  of  opposition.  Even 
England,  with  her  deep-rooted  and  powerful  executive,  has 
not  been  free  from  its  pernicious  effect.  What  arrested  the 
war  of  Marlborough,  when  France  was  so  humbled,  that,  had 
it  been  continued,  Europe  might  have  been  free  from  the 
danger  which  she  has  experienced  from  that  power  ?  What 
stayed  the  conquering  hand  of  Chatham,  when  before  his 


SPEECHES.  65 

genius  and  power  the  throne  of  the  Bourbons  trembled  to 
its  centre  ?  The  spirit  of  factious  opposition,  that  common 
cause  of  calamity, — that,  without  which,  liberty  might  be 
eternal,  and  free  states  irresistible. 

Our  country,  as  young  as  she  is,  has  her  examples  also. 
In  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  had  she  been  united  to  a  man 
— had  there  been  no  apologists  of  opposition — had  no  one 
opposed  his  will  to  the  general  determination — would  the 
enemy  ever  have  had  a  hold  in  our  country  ?  or  would  that 
contest  have  lasted  for  a  year  ?  or  would  we  have  been  in- 
debted to  foreign  aid  for  the  establishment  of  our  indepen- 
dence ?  Even  in  this  war,  how  much  has  it  debilitated  the 
energies  of  our  country  ?  The  gentleman  from  New  Hamp- 
shire, who  spoke  with  ingenuity  on  this  subject,  told  us,  that 
if  we  were  united,  the  Canadas  would  be  reduced  in  thirty 
days  ;  and  that  in  consequence  of  the  disasters  springing 
from  our  divisions,  we  had  been  disgraced. 

What  more  can  I  say  on  the  fatal  effects  of  opposition  ? 
I  appeal  to  that  gentleman  to  state  the  cause  of  our 
divisions ;  and  would  ask  him  whether,  with  the  certain 
knowledge  of  its  pernicious  effects,  every  means  that  could 
excite  opposition  have  not  been  unceasingly  applied  ?  To 
obviate  the  natural  conclusion,  the  gentleman  from  New 
Hampshire  was  compelled  to  deny  that  the  party  now  in 
power  is  a  majority  in  this  country;  and  to  contend  that 
the  representation  in  this  body  furnishes  no  evidence  of  that 
fact.  He  argued,  that  many  who  are  opposed  to  the  war 
were,  from  party  motives,  induced  to  vote  for  those  in  favor 
of  it.  Even  admitting  the  argument  to  be  well-founded, 
which  I  cannot  think,  might  it  not  be  retorted  ?  I  would 
be  glad  to  know  why  the  rule  does  not  apply  to  the  minority 
in  an  equal  degree  ?  Until  he  assigns  some  reason  why  it 
does  not,  I  must  continue  to  consider  the  majority  here,  as 
representing  a  great  majority  of  the  people ;  and  the 
minority,  as  opposing  the  will  of  that  majority. 

VOL.   II. — 5 


66  SPEECHES. 

The  pretensions  and  declarations  of  the  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side  of  the  House,  have  compelled  me  to  make 
these  general  observations.  I  know  not  how  else  they  can 
be  met,  and  I  consider  them  as  fraught  with  doctrines  so 
erroneous  and  dangerous,  that  it  is  my  duty  to  present  their 
falsity,  in  the  best  manner  in  my  power,  to  this  House  and 
to  the  country.  From  the  same  sense  of  duty,  I  feel  bound 
to  offer  my  sentiments  on  a  subject  of  greater  delicacy  ; — I 
mean,  on  the  character  of  the  opposition  which  the  govern- 
ment has  experienced,  since  the  commencement  of  the  present 
difficulties,  in  1806  ;  and  to  inquire  under  which  of  the  two 
species  of  opposition — the  moderate  and  useful,  or  factious 
and  dangerous — it  ought  to  be  arranged  ?  It  is  with  pain  I 
make  this  inquiry.  I  take  no  pleasure  in  perceiving  the 
faults  of  any  part  of  our  citizens,  much  less  in  presenting 
them  to  the  public.  -"My  object  is  not  to  expose,  but  to  re- 
form— to  admonish  of  a  danger  so  incident  to  free  states,  into 
which  all  opposition,  even  of  the  most  virtuous  kind,  so  easily 
degenerates,  if  not  incessantly  watched  ;  and  to  call  on  them, 
while  yet  possible,  to  arrest  its  fatal  career.  It  is  important 
to  know  that  there  is  a  stage  in  the  progress  of  opposition, 
which  gentlemen  consider  so  harmless,  which,  when  once  at- 
tained, no  power  can  arrest — not  love  of  country — not  even 
the  certainty  of  being  involved  in  the  common  destruction. 
Has  it  made  any  progress  in  this  country  to  so  dangerous  a 
state  .?>  I  fear  there  are  appearances  which  will  justify  such 
a  belief.  One  of  its  most  natural  symptoms  is,  a  settled  and 
fixed  character,  which,  as  its  object  is  to  embarrass  and 
weaken  government,  loses  no  opportunity  to  throw  impedi- 
ments hi  the  way  of  every  measure.  It  has  two  other  con- 
comitants :  the  one,  a  violence  and  vehemence  not  warranted 
by  any  considerations  of  expediency ;  and  the  other,  the 
urging  of  measures  which,  if  adopted,  must  lead  to  national 
ruin.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  are  reasons  to  believe  that 
all  of  these  exist  in  the  present  opposition.  Is  it  not  set- 


SPEECHES.  67 

tied  and  fixed  ?  In  an  unexampled  state  of  national  diffi- 
culties, from  the  first  belligerent  decree  against  our  neutral 
commerce  down  to  this  day,  I  ask,  what  one  of  all  the 
measures  of"  our  government  to  resist  this  almost  universal 
depredation,  has  not,  under  one  pretext  or  another,  been  op- 
posed, ridiculed,  and  weakened  ?  Yes,  opposed  with  a  vio- 
lence that  would  lead  to  a  belief  that  the  constituted 
authorities,  instead  of  opposing  the  most  gross  and  out- 
rageous injustice,  sought  only  the  destruction  of  their  coun- 
try. Again ;  what  have  been  the  measures  that  opposition 
has  virtually  urged  ?  What  is  it  at  this  moment  ?  To 
withhold  the  laws — to  withhold  the  loans — to  withhold  the 
men  who  are  to  fight  our  battles — or,  in  other  words,  to  de- 
stroy public  faith,  and  to  deliver  the  country  unarmed  to  the 
mercy  of  the  enemy.  Suppose  all  of  these  objects  accom- 
plished, and  what  would  be  the  situation  of  the  country  ? 
I  appeal  to  the  people  for  a  decision.  Nor  are  those  morbid 
symptoms  confined  to  this  body.  The  contagion  has  gone 
forth  into  the  community,  and  wherever  it  has  appeared,  has 
exhibited  the  same  dangerous  characteristics.  The  inquiry 
might  be  pushed  much  farther  ;  but  I  abstain  from  it,  as  it 
is  to  me  by  no  means  a  pleasant  task. 

But,  say  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House, 
what  right  have  we  to  object  ?.  The  constitution  justifies 
and  secures  them  in  an  opposition  to  the  measures  of  govern- 
ment. They  claim  to  be  not  only  above  laws,  but  beyond 
animadversion.  It  is  in  their  eyes  fair  and  proper  that 
the  majority  who  act  under  the  undoubted  and  express 
sanction  of  the  constitution,  should  be  subjected  to  every 
species  of  abuse  and  impediment ;  but,  should  any  one  ques- 
tion the  right  or  the  expediency  of  the  opposition,  we  hear 
an  immediate  cry  of  oppression.  For  my  part,  I  think  that 
a  fair  and  moderate  opposition  ought  at  all  times  to  be  re- 
spected ;  but,  that  our  constitution  authorized  that  danger- 
ous and  vicious  Jspecigs  whjdbjnjuive  attempted  to  describe, 


68  SPEECHES. 

I  utterly  deny.  I  call  on  those  who  make  the  claim  to  so 
extravagant  a  power,  to  point  out  the  article  of  that  instru- 
ment which  warrants  such  a  construction.  Will  they  cite 
that  which  establishes  the  liberty  of  speech  here  ?  Its  ob- 
ject is  far  different,  and  it  furnishes  not  the  shadow  of  such 
a  power.  Will  they  rely  on  its  general  spirit  ?  It  knows 
no  object  but  the  general  good,  and  must  for  ever  condemn 
all  factious  opposition  to  measures  emanating  from  its  own 
authority.  It  is  then  not  authorized  either  by  the  letter  or 
the  spirit  of  the  constitution.  If,  then,  our  opponents  have 
the  right,  it  is  because  it  is  not  expressly  forbidden.  In  this 
sense  there  is  no  limitation  to  their  constitutional  rights.  A 
right  might  be  thus  derived  to  violate  the  whole  decalogue. 
The  constitution  forbids  almost  no  crimes ;  nor  ought  it  to 
be  considered  in  the  light  of  a  voluminous  penal  code,  whose 
object  is  the  definition  and  prohibition  of  all  acts  injurious  to 
society.  Even  were  this  the  case,  the  argument  that  what 
is  not  forbidden  is  justifiable,  would  be  fallacious  ;  for  there 
are  many  acts  of  the  most  dangerous  tendency  (of  which  an 
unprincipled  opposition  is  one),  which  in  their  very  nature 
are  not  susceptible  of  that  rigid  definition  necessary  to  sub- 
ject them  to  punishment.  '  How  absurd,  then,  the  argument, 
as  applied  to  the  constitution,  whose  object  is  the  mere 
enumeration,  distribution,  and  organization  of  the  powers 
of  the  body  politic,  t 

/  I  have  been  compelled  by  the  great  and  dangerous  errors 
of  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side,  to  take  a  view  more 
general,  than  is  usually  proper,  of  a  subject  on  which  it  is  so 
important  to  think  correctly ;  and  I  cannot  take  my  seat 
without  reiterating  my  admonition  to  this  body  and  the 
country,  to  guard  against  the  pernicious  effects  of  a  factious 
opposition.  Universal  experience  and  the  history  of  all  ages 
furnish  ample  testimony  of  its  dangerous  consequences,  par- 
ticularly in  a  state  of  war.  Could  any  certain  remedy  be 
applied  to  restrain  it  within  the  bounds  of  moderation,  then, 


SPEECHES.  69 

indeed,  might  our  liberty  be  immortal.  I  know  of  none  but 
the  good  sense  and  the  virtue  of  the  people.  The  triumph 
of  a  party  can  be  nothing  to  them.  They  can  have  no 
interest  but  in  the  general  welfare./ 


SPEECH 

On  the  Loan  Bill,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, February  25th,  1814. 

[NOTE. — January  31st,  1814.  Mr.  Eppes  from  the  Committee  of 

Ways  and  Means,  reported  a  Bill  to  authorize  a  loan  of millions  of 

dollars,  which  was  read  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
The  debate  on  this  Bill,  in  which  almost  all  the  leading  men  of  both  par- 
ties participated,  took  a  wide  range ;  embracing  all  the  great  questions  of 
the  day,  which  were  elaborately  discussed.  On  the  character  of  the  dis- 
cussion, a  shrewd  contemporary  makes  the  following  pertinent  remarks  : 

"The  debate  (not  on  the  Loan  Bill,  but  suffered  while  it  was  be- 
fore a  Committee  of  the  Whole  of  the  House  of  Representatives)  has 
had  an  unlimited  range.  Every  question  of  politics  that  has  agitated  the 
United  States  for  fifteen  or  twenty  years  past,  and  every  one  that 
may  be  expected  for  twenty  years  to  come,  appears  to  have  been 
embodied  in  the  speeches  of  the  members :  some  of  whom,  it  is 
said,  have  spoken  three  hours,  without  mentioning  the  Bill  at  all." 

The  principal  grounds  of  the  opposition  were,  the  inexpediency  of 
the  war — to  carry  on  which  the  loan  was  asked — and  the  impos- 
sibility, if  granted,  of  obtaining  the  money.  Mr.  Calhoun  spoke  to 
these  objections  and  in  favor  of  the  Bill.] 

MK.  CHAIRMAN  : — It  is  now  more  than  two  weeks  since 
the  commencement  of  this  debate  ;  the  greater  part  of  which 
time  has  been  consumed  by  the  opposition  in  attempting  to 
prove  the  bad  faith,  poverty,  folly,  and  injustice  of  our 
government  and  country  :  for  all  of  their  arguments  and  de- 
clamation, however  variant  and  contradictory,  are  reducible  to 


70  SPEECHES. 

two  objections  against  the  passage  of  this  bill.  First — That 
such  is  the  want  of  capital,  or  of  public  credit,  that  the  loan 
cannot  be  had,  or  if  at  all,  only  at  an  extravagant  interest ;  and 
secondly — If  the  amount  can  be  obtained,  the  bill  ought  to 
be  rejected  ;  because,  in  then:  opinion,  the  war  is  unjust  and 
inexpedient.  The  last  of  these  objections  I  propose  to  dis- 
cuss. To  examine  both  at  lajge  would  occupy  too  much 
time.  Without,  therefore,  discussing  the  question  whether 
the  loan  can  or  cannot  be  had,  I  will  merely  offer  a  few  re- 
flections incidentally  connected  with  it. 

It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  not  one  of  the  minority  has 
discussed  the  material  points  on  this  part  of  the  subject; 
I  mean  the  question, — is  the  money  proposed  to  be  raised  by 
this  bill,  indispensable  for  the  service  of  the  year  ?  And,  if 
so,  is  a  loan,  the  only,  or  the  best  mode  of  obtaining  it  ?  The 
chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  has  presented 
an  estimate  of  the  expenditures  already  ordered, — or  which 
must  be  incurred, — by  which  it  appears,  that  the  sum  proposed 
to  be  raised  by  this  bill,  with  other  sources  of  revenue,  will 
be  absolutely  necessary  to  meet  them.  The  silence  of  the 
opposition  sanctions  the  correctness  of  the  estimate  ;  and  as 
no  other  mode  has  been  indicated  of  obtaining  the  necessary 
supplies,  this  may  be  presumed  to  be  the  only  or  the  best 
one.  It  ceases,  then,  to  be  a  question,  whether  the  loan  can 
be  had  at  this  or  that  interest.  It  is  necessary  ;  it  must  be 
had  ;  and  the  rate  per  centum  will  depend  principally  on  the 
state  of  the  money  market — and  not  on  arguments  used 
here.  Again  ;  on  comparing  the  two  objections  to  the  pas- 
sage of  this  bill,  one  of  them  destroys  all  confidence  in  the 
other.  Our  opponents  contend,  not  only  that  the  loan  can- 
not be  had,  but  that  it  ought  not  to  be  granted.  To  defeat  the 
passage  of  the  bill  in,  or  to  prevent  its  successful  operation  out 
of  this  House,  is  the  declared  object  of  their  policy.  It 
is  true  that  all  have  not  made  the  latter  declaration  ;  but 
none,  as  far  as  my  memory  serves,  have  disavowed  it.  When, 


SPEECHES.  VI 

then,  they  argue  that  the  loan  must  fail,  they  must  be  con- 
sidered either  as  dupes  of  their  wishes,  or,  what  is  more  pro- 
bable, as  aiming  to  destroy  the  confidence  of  moneyed  men  in 
the  public  faith  ;  for  it  cannot  be  presumed  that  they  have 
any  hope  of  defeating  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

But  to  proceed  to  the  objection  which  I  proposed  to  dis- 
cuss. The  war,  say  our  opponents,  is  unjust  and  inexpedient, 
and,  therefore,  this  bill  ought  to  be  rejected.  The  facts  of  the 
supposed  injustice  and  inexpediency  of  the  war,  on  which  this 
objection  rests,  have  claimed  the  exclusive  attention  of  the  op- 
position. The  inference  deduced  fronvthem — that  they  justify 
the  rejection  of  this  bill,  though  far  from  being  a  self-evident 
proposition,  has  received  no  part  of  their  arguments  or  elucida- 
tions. For  my  part,  I  consider  it  not  only  false  but  dangerous  ; 
and  shall,  therefore,  not  only  consider  the  alleged  injustice  and 
inexpediency  of  the  war,  but  also  the  inference  assumed 
from  these  charges.  I  trust,  with  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee, to  prove  that  both  are  equally  unfounded.  I  must 
beg  an  attentive  and  deliberate  hearing  ;  for  a  correct  mode 
of  thinking  on  this  subject,  I  sincerely  believe  to  be  necessary 
to  the  lasting  prosperity  of  our  country.  I  say  an  attentive 
and  deliberate  hearing,  for  it  is  not  sufficient  that  the  mind 
be  fixed  on  the  discussion  ;  but  it  should  also  be  free  from 
those  passions  and  prejudices  unfavorable  to  the  reception  of 
truth.  The  fact  that  discussion  here  assumes  the  form  of 
debate  produces  a  state  of  things  unfavorable  to  dispassionate 
attention.  In  debate  here,  as  between  two  individuals,  the 
opposite  sides  are  much  more  disposed  to  find  objections  to 
an  argument,  be  it  ever  so  clear,  than  to  receive  it  with  a 
proper  degree  of  assent.  In  their  zeal,  the  interest  of  the 
country  is  too  often  forgotten  ;  and  mere  recriminations  made 
to  take  the  place  of  earnest  endeavors  to  discover  and  en- 
force the  claims  of  truth.  I  hope  what  I  have  to  say  will 
not  be  viewed  as  a  mere  exercise  of  skill  in  discussion,  in 
which  those  who  hear  me  have  little  or  no  interest ;  frit  as 


72  SPEECHES. 

containing  principles  believed  to  be  essential  to  the  public  in- 
terest. I  trust  I  hold  in  proper  contempt  the  spirit  of  idle 
debate.  Its  heat  and  zeal  are  momentary.  Not  so  with  our 
principles  and  measures.  On  them  must  depend  our  future 
prosperity  and  happiness. 

Is  the  war  unjust  and  inexpedient  ?  This  is  the  question 
which  I  now  propose  to  discuss.  The  eagerness  and  zeal 
with  which  our  opponents  endeavor  to  prove  this  point,  seem 
to  me  not  at  all  consistent  with  sound  principles,  or  due  love 
of  country.  In  their  zeal  they  often  presume  that  we  are 
wrong,  and  our  enemy  right ;  and  that  the  burden  lies  on 
us  to  prove  their  charges  false — before  they  have  attempted 
to  prove  them  true.  How  contrary  this  to  the  maxims  of 
Koman  wisdom  !  That  wise  and  virtuous  people,  so  far  from 
presuming  their  country  to  be  wrong,  considered  it  as  a 
crime  in  a  citizen  to  doubt  the  justice  of  the  public  cause. 
In  a  state  of  war,  how  worthy  of  our  imitation  !  It  was  at 
the  root  of  Koman  greatness.  Without  it,  a  free  state  must 
ever  lose  much  of  its  native  and  peculiar  strength  ;  the  sponta- 
neous and  concurring  zeal  of  its  citizens.  The  charge  of  in- 
justice and  inexpediency  in  respect  to  the  war,  necessarily 
leads  me  to  investigate  its  cause.  It  originated,  as  agreed  on 
all  sides,  in  certain  commercial  aggressions  on  the  part  of 
England,  and  her  practice  of  impressing  American  seamen 
from  American  vessels  on  the  high  seas.  Though  I  have 
named  commercial  injuries  first,  it  is  my  intention  to  give 
impressment  the  preference  in  the  order  of  discussion  ;  not 
only  because  the  war  is  continued  for  it,  but  because  it  is  of 
greater  intrinsic  importance.  The  life  and  liberty  of  "a  cit- 
izen are  more  important  to  him  and  his  country  than  his  pro- 
perty ;  and  consequently  the  obligation  to  protect  the  for- 
mer is  more  sacred  than  the  latter.  To  the  truth  of  this 
position,  our  political  institutions  bear  testimony.  A  single 
judicial  process  determines  a  question  of  property ;  but  it  re- 
quires a  double  investigation,  first,  before  a  grand  and  then  a 


SPEECHES.  73 

petit  jury,  before  the  humblest  and  most  suspected  citizen 
can  be  deprived  of  life  or  liberty.  This  mode  of  thinking  is 
worthy  of  a  free  people,  and,  in  fact,  essential  to  the  perma- 
nent existence  of  their  freedom.  Yes ;  life  and  liberty, 
those  precious  gifts  of  Heaven,  are,  by  our  laws  and  constitu- 
tions, guaranteed  to  all.  They  may  be  abused,  and  thus  be- 
come forfeited  to  the  country  ;  but  cannot  be  taken  away  by 
the  hand  of  arbitrary  power.  Let  us  bear  these  sentiments  in 
our  minds,  and  bring  them  in  our  bosoms  to  this  discussion. 
It  is  fortunate  that  the  facts,  connected  with  impress- 
ment, are  few  and  undoubted.  I  set  aside,  for  the  present, 
the  pretext  and  principle  on  which  Great  Britain  acts  in 
relation  to  it.  None  can  deny  that  a  great  number  of 
American  sailors  have  been  impressed  from  on  board  Amer- 
ican vessels  on  the  high  seas,  and,  by  force,  compelled  to 
serve  a  sovereign  to  whom  they  owe  no  allegiance,  and  to 
fight  battles  in  which  they  have  no  interest.  It  is  equally 
certain,  that  the  practice  is  now  of  long  continuance  ;  and 
that  negotiation  has  often,  but  in  vain,  been  resorted  to  for 
redress.  I  say,  a  great  number,  without  attempting  to  be 
more  specific — because  I  do  not  conceive  the  exact  number 
to  be  material ;  and  also,  because  I  do  not  wish  to  incorpo- 
rate any  thing  the  least  doubtful  in  the  statement.  On  this 
point,  however,  the  two  governments  are  pretty  well  agreed. 
Ours  estimates  the  entire  number  taken  at  something  more 
than  6,000  ;  and  the  British  government  acknowledges  that, 
at  the  breaking  out  of  the  war,  they  had  sixteen  hundred, 
at  least,  on  board  their  public  vessels.  After  deducting 
from  our  list  the  dead  by  battle  and  disease,  the  deserters 
and  the  liberated,  it  will  be  found  that  theirs  exceeded  our 
estimate.  To  the  shame  of  the  minority,  they  alone  have 
attempted  to  throw  any  doubt  on  this  point,  and  to  dimin- 
ish the  injury  of  the  enemy  below  their  own  acknowledg- 
ment. On  this  simple  statement,  there  are  two  inferences  so 
clear,  that  I  feel  it  almost  an  insult  to  the  understanding  of 


74  SPEECHES. 

this  committee  to  state  them.  I  must  seek  for  my  apology 
in  the  efforts  of  our  opponents  to  render  that  doubtful,  which, 
in  itself,  is  so  manifest ; — I  mean  the  violation  of  the  rights 
and  liberty  of  the  impressed  American  seamen,  and  the  cor- 
respondent duty  imposed  on  their  country  to  protect  them. 
I  know  of  no  illustration  of  a  proposition  so  perfectly  clear. 
No  head  can  be  so  impenetrable  as  not  to  perceive  its  truth  ; 
no  heart  so  callous  as  not  to  feel  its  obligation.  For,  who, 
in  this  community  of  freemen,  is  willing  to  renounce  the 
claim  of  protection  which  he  has  on  all, — or  withhold  the  duty 
which  he  is  under  to  all  ?  It  is  the  essence  of  civil  society. 

Such,  and  so  simple  is  the  truth  on  which  the  cause  of 
our  country  stands.  On  these  essential  facts  and  inferences 
we  are  on  all  sides  agreed.  The  obligation  of  the  govern- 
ment is  established.  How,  then,  are  we  to  be  absolved  from 
so  sacred  a  duty  ?  The  impressed,  the  enslaved  seamen 
have  invoked  the  protection  of  their  country.  Shall  it  be 
extended  to  them,  or  shall  it  be  withheld  ?  This  is  the 
question  now  proposed  for  our  consideration,  and  which 
naturally  introduces  the  various  arguments  of  the  minority 
on  this  important  subject.  They  combat  against  inferences 
the  most  clear  and  powerful  ;  and  proportionally  perspicu- 
ous and  strong  must  be  the  reasons  to  justify  their  conduct. 
I  will  commence  with  that  which  I  believe  to  be  most  relied 
on,  because  most  frequently  and  zealously  urged  in  justifi- 
cation of  our  enemy.  It  is  said  that  they  take  American 
seamen  by  mistake,  and  not  on  principle  ;  their  object  is 
to  take  their  own  seamen — but,  from  the  impossibility  of 
distinguishing  them,  the  American  seaman  is  impressed. 
The  answer  is  plain  and  decisive.  The  argument  is  founded 
in  a  misconception.  The  duty  which  the  country  owes  to 
the  impressed  sailor  originates  in  a  single  fact,  that  he  is 
unjustly  deprived,  by  a  foreign  nation,  of  his  liberty.  The 
principle  on  which  this  is  done,  or  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
effected,  is  immaterial.  Whether  done  on  principle  or  by 


SPEECHES.  75 

mistake,  may,  it  is  true,  have  a  bearing  on  the  continuance 
of  the  practice  and  its  future  extent ;  for  what  is  done  by 
mistake  or  accident  generally  leaves  the  consolation  that  it 
will  not  probably  occur  again  ;  but  what  is  done  on  principle 
may  be  expected  to  continue.  We  have  not  even  this  hope. 
The  evil  is  inveterate.  The  mistake,  if  one  it  is,  must  for 
ever  happen,  so  long  as  the  present  practice  is  continued  of 
impressing  from  American  vessels.  It,  therefore,  operates, 
as  it  regards  us,  as  if  it  were  the  result  of  principle.  I, 
however,  deny  the  fact  on  which  this  justification  rests. 
The  object  of  England  is  not  to  take  her  seamen  only.  By 
recurring  to  official  documents  on  this  subject,  it  will  be 
found,  that  she  impresses  persons  on  board  of  our  vessels, 
who  could  not  be  mistaken  for  British  sailors.  She  takes, 
indiscriminately,  Dane,  Dutch,  Spaniard,  and  seamen  of 
any  nation.  To  speak  another  language  and  to  wear  a 
different  complexion  are,  it  seems,  no  evidence  with  the 
British  government  that  they  are  not  English  sailors.  What, 
then,  is  the  principle  of  that  government  on  this  subject  ? 
If  we  are  to  judge  by  facts,  and  not  by  pretexts  (which  will 
never  be  wanting,  if  we  are  simple  enough  to  believe  them), 
it  is  this :  they  claim,  at  least  as  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
that  every  seafaring  person  found  on  the  ocean  is  presump- 
tively an  Englishman,  and  bound  to  serve  the  crown  of 
Great  Britain.  They  admit,  it  is  true,  that  this  presump- 
tion maybe  rebutted  in  a  single  case  ;  and  in  this  only  by  the 
seaman  proving  himself  to  belong  to  the  same  country  with 
the  flag  under  which  he  sails.  If,  for  instance,  the  vessel  is 
American,  that  he  was  born  in  the  United  States.  The 
impressing  officer,  the  very  person  interested  against  him, 
is,  however,  the  judge  and  jury  who  presides  in  this  mock 
trial  of  nativity.  It  is  thus  the  American  flag  is  insulted. 
It  is  thus  the  American  citizen  is  stripped  of  his  liberty 
under  its  protection  !  At  home,  he  holds  his  liberty  under 
the  protection  of  the  most  sacred  laws  ;  abroad — no,  I  will 


76  SPEECHES. 

not  admit  the  distinction — for  while  under  our  flag  he  is 
still  at  home — he  holds  life  and  liberty  at  the  mercy  of  every 
insignificant,  drunken  midshipman !  But  let  us  attend,  for 
a  moment  longer,  to  the  object  of  this  principle  of  the 
British  government,  as  illustrated  by  practice.  A  war  in 
Europe,  in  which  England  is  engaged,  sooner  or  later 
extends  to  all  the  other  powers  in  that  part  of  the  globe. 
In  consequence  of  her  superiority  at  sea,  the  navigation 
and  commerce  of  other  states  are  destroyed  or  suspended 
in  a  state  of  war ;  and  their  seamen,  who  cannot  readily 
change  their  habits,  are  compelled  to  seek  employment  in 
foreign  service.  Until  lately,  the  United  States  remaining 
neutral,  and  offering  high  wages,  they  naturally  preferred 
ours.  To  this  state  of  facts,  her  principle  of  impressing  all 
foreign  seamen  was  applied ;  and,  by  its  operation,  she 
forced  those,  who  were  by  their  own  consent  employed  in 
our  vessels,  to  serve,  by  compulsion,  in  her  navy.  Thus,  by 
a  single  process,  under  the  pretext  of  taking  her  own  seamen, 
the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the  world  are  converted 
into  a  nursery  to  support  the  British  navy  ;  and  the  practice 
of  impressment  from  neutrals,  on  investigation,  is  discovered 
to  be,  like  all  her  other  encroachments,  a  system  of  universal 
monopoly.  TJnless  resisted  by  the  steady  and  persevering 
efforts  of  other  nations,  she  must  eventually  draw  the  com- 
merce of  the  world  into  the  vortex  of  her  system. 

It  is  next  urged  that  this  is  an  ancient  custom  on  the 
part  of  England  and  Europe  generally — that  it  is  a  part  of 
the  law  of  nations  to  impress  on  board  of  neutral  vessels  on 
the  high  seas.  Those  who  urge  this  argument  ought  to  sub- 
stantiate it  by  a  reference  to  the  facts  and  to  elementary 
writers  on  public  law.  Till  this  is  done,  it  cannot  be  considered 
in  a  stronger  light  than  a  mere  assertion.  I,  for  my  own 
part,  do  not  believe  that  it  ever  constituted  the  custom  of 
Europe,  nor  that  of  England,  till  since  the  period  of  the 
American  war.  If  it  were  a  general  custom,  why  is  it  not 


SPEECHES.  77 

recognized  by  some  of  the  many  writers  on  the  law  of  nations  ? 
They  minutely  state  the  cases  in  which  a  belligerent  may 
enter  a  neutral  vessel  for  the  purpose  of  search.  Why  is  not 
this  also  mentioned  ?  None  of  the  rights  of  search  could  be 
more  important,  or  better  deserve  their  attention  than  this, 
if  any  such  really  existed.  Their  silence,  then,  is  decisive 
against  the  custom.  I  know  that  some  English  writers 
have  set  up  an  old  claim,  founded  on  the  orders  of  their  gov- 
ernment ;  but  there  is  no  proof  of  acquiescence  on  the  part  of 
other  powers  ;  and  if  there  were,  it  could  not  be  obligatory 
on  us.  The  law  of  nations  is  composed,  principally,  of  usages 
originating  in  mutual  convenience.  Among  the  nations  of 
modern  Europe,  who  are  distinguishable  by  their  language 
and  countenances,  it  is  possible  that  impressment  on  board 
of  neutral  vessels  may  not  be  liable  to  the  mistakes  and 
abuses  of  which  we  complain ;  and  that  it  might  even  be  a 
mutual  convenience.  Such  a  custom,  then,  would  not  be 
extraordinary.  But  were  those  nations  related,  as  are  the 
United  States  and  England,  and  the  practice  thus,  from 
necessity,  attended  with  incessant  abuse,  it  never  could 
exist.  If  our  opponents,  then,  had  proved,  and  not  merely 
asserted,  such  a  custom  among  European  nations,  as  between 
us  and  England,  our  country  would  have  formed  an  exception. 
It  is  not  applicable  to  our  condition ;  it  is  unequal,  not 
reciprocal,  and  attended  with  grievous  and  constant  abuses. 
As  applied  to  us,  then,  the  general  usage — if  such  there  be — 
ought  to  be  modified  by  treaty,  so  as  to  suit  the  mutual 
convenience  of  both  parties ;  an  object  which  this  country 
has  ever  been  anxious  to  effect,  but  which  has  been  studiously 
avoided  by  our  enemy.  If,  however,  our  opponents  still 
insist  that  it  is  a  right  under  the  law  of  nations,  and  must, 
notwithstanding  the  argument  which  I  have  advanced,  be 
considered  as  applicable  to  us,  we  may  meet  usage  with 
usage ;  or,  rather,  a  doubtful  uncertain  usage,  and  opposed 
to  reason,  by  that  which  is  undoubted  and  founded  in  the 


78  SPEECHES. 

very  nature  of  civil  society.  If  to  impress  in  neutral  vessels 
be  an  usage  of  England  and  the  rest  of  Europe,  how  much 
more  general  and  indisputable  is  the  custom  of  affording 
protection  to  their  subjects  against  foreign  violence  !  This 
is  the  usage  which  is  certain  and  universal — not  confined  to 
any  particular  nation,  nor  originating  in  accidental  circum- 
stances. All  States,  the  most  weak  and  contemptible  claim 
it ;  and  it  is  so  interwoven  with  the  very  elements  of  society, 
that  it  cannot  be  relinquished  without  certain  destruction. 
On  this  custom,  which  combines  both  right  and  duty,  we  may 
oppose  any  pretext  or  claim  of  our  enemy. 

But,  say  some  of  our  opponents,  we  are  willing  to  defend 
native-born  American  seamen,  but  not  the  naturalized.  I 
know  not  how  they  who  make  this  distinction  can  answer 
a  simple  question  founded  on  an  admitted  fact.  American 
seamen — sixteen  hundred  at  least — native-born  American 
seamen — by  the  acknowledgment  of  the  British  government, 
are  impressed  and  held  in  bondage.  If,  then,  you  are  willing 
to  defend  such,  why  not  support  the  war,  now  carried  on 
solely  in  defence  of  right,  outraged  in  the  persons  of  these 
unfortunate  citizens  ?  What  avail  is  the  declaration,  that 
you  are  willing  to  defend  them,  when  you  will  not  move  a 
finger  in  their  cause  ?  But  the  distinction,  between  native 
and  naturalized,  is  without  truth  or  reason.  It  constitutes 
no  part  of  the  controversy  between  the  two  countries.  We 
contend  for  the  defence  of  American  seamen  generally.  The 
enemy  has  not  distinguished  between  the  two  classes.  He 
insists  on  continuing  a  custom  which  makes  both  equally 
liable  to  his  oppression.  We  have  not — we  shall  not  hear 
of  a  distinction,  till  some  security  is  afforded  against  the 
abuses  of  which  we  complain.  Till  then,  I  can  consider  it 
only  as  an  equivocation,  which  acknowledges  the  duty  of  the 
government  to  protect,  but  evades  the  discharge  of  it.  We 
are  told  that  our  seamen  ask  no  protection — and  that  it  is 
strange  those,  who  are  most  remote  and  least  interested, 


SPEECHES.  79 

should  discover  the  greatest  anxiety  in  their  behalf.  As  to 
the  first  part  of  this  statement,  I  deny  its  truth.  Our  sailors 
have  claimed  our  protection.  They  have  importuned  and 
invoked  their  country.  We  have  had  their  applications  for 
protection  laid  before  this  House  in  the  form  of  a  document. 
It  forms  a  large  volume.  Considering  the  cold  indifference 
with  which  we  have  heard  their  prayer,  I  wonder  that  they 
have  not,  long  since,  ceased  to  consider  us  as  their  guardians. 
But  we  who  stand  forth  to  discharge  this  sacred  duty,  are 
charged  with  being  backwoodsmen,  men  who  never  saw  a 
ship  till  convened  here  in  our  legislative  capacity.  Admit 
the  fact ;  and  what  then  ?  Such  generous  sympathy  for 
those  who  stand  connected  with  us  only  by  the  ties  of  citizen- 
ship, does  honor  to  our  country.  I  hope  it  is  not  strange. 
It  is  usual.  /  Our  history  abounds  with  many  instances  of  this 
sympathy  t>f  the  whole  with  any  and  every  part.  When  it 
ceases  to  be  natural,  we  shall  cease  to  be  one  nation.  It 
constitutes  our  real  union.  The  rest  is  fonn/  The  wonder 
is,  in  fact,  on  the  other  side.  Since  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that  American  citizens  are  held  in  foreign  bondage,  how 
strange  that  those  who  boast  of  being  neighbors  and  relations, 
should  be  dead  to  all  sympathy — should  not  have  the  manly 
spirit  to  make  a  generous  effort  for  their  relief.  There  was 
a  time  when  our  opponents,  to  their  honor,  were  not  so  cold 
on  this  subject.  The  venerable  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts, and  another  gentleman  high  in  the  ranks  of  his  party, 
formerly  felt  and  spoke  on  it,  as  we  now  do — like  Americans. 
How  unhappy  the  change  !  How  unaccountable  !  Unless, 
indeed,  we  look  to  the  poisonous  effects  of  the  spirit  of  sys- 
tematic opposition — a  spirit  which,  I  lately  observed  on 
another  occasion,  clings  more  strongly  to  the  cause  of  a  party, 
than  to  that  of  the  country. 

But  great  frauds,  we  are  told,  are  committed  in  the 
certificates  of  protection.  I  will  not  spend  much  time  on  this 
frivolous  argument.  What  right  has  England  to  complain 


80  SPEECHES. 

of  frauds,  if  they  really  do  exist  ?  Whether  they  do  or  not, 
I  do  not  think  worth  the  inquiry.  The  argument,  taken  at 
the  best,  can  have  no  weight,  except  with  those  who  think 
that  the  freeborn  citizens  of  this  country,  under  our  own  flag, 
are  to  be  protected  like  a  slave,  by  a  pass  in  his  pocket.  To 
give  weight  to  it,  we  must  forget  our  rights  and  duties  as  an 
independent  nation.  The  framers  of  the  law  under  which 
the  protections  are  taken  out,  did  not  design  them  as  safe- 
guards while  navigating  the  ocean.  The  object  was  to  iden- 
tify the  seamen,  as  Americans,  in  the  ports  of  foreign 
countries  ;  and  this  construction  has  been  given  to  it  by  our 
Government  in  its  negotiations  with  the  British.  In  this 
view,  the  law  is  not  unworthy  of  the  wisdom  and  independence 
of  our  country ;  but  I  can  scarcely  conceive  a  greater  na- 
tional degradation,  than  would  be  involved  in  the  scheme  of 
affording  protection  to  our  seamen  on  the  high  seas,  and 
under  our  flag,  by  a  pass. 

On  the  subject  of  impressment,  one  argument  only  re- 
mains to  be  replied  to.  The  practice  of  taking  seamen  from 
our  vessels  is  necessary,  say  our  opponents,  to  the  existence 
of  England.  I  would  be  happy  to  know  the  reason  why  it 
is  necessary.  We  have  pledged  ourselves  by  a  law,  which 
we  offer  to  make  the  basis  of  a  treaty,  not  to  employ  a  single 
British  sailor.  The  provisions  of  the  bill  are  ample  ;  and  we 
are  willing  to  give  her  every  reasonable  security  on  this 
point.  When  the  assertion,  then,  is  made,  in  the  face  of 
this  law,  designed  to  exclude  British  seamen,  that  the  prac- 
tice of  impressing  on  board  of  our  vessels  is  necessary  to  her 
existence,  it  must  be  meant — if  any  thing  be  meant — in  re- 
lation to  American  seamen.  If  so,  before  we  disregard  our 
duty  and  surrender  our  rights  to  the  disposition  of  a  foreign 
power,  I  think  it  would  be  prudent  to  establish  two  points 
connected  with  this  subject.  In  the  first  place,  it  ought  to 
be  clearly  proved  to  be  necessary  to  the  existence  of  England. 
I,  for  one,  will  not  agree  to  yield  our  independence  on  mere 


SPEECHES.  81 

assertion,  however  respectable  the  authority  by  which  it  is 
made.  In  the  next  place,  it  ought  to  be  proved  to  be  our 
duty  to  submit.  The  sense  of  moral  obligation  is  peculiarly 
strong  in  the  bosoms  of  the  American  people.  However 
great  the  sacrifice,  if  our  opponents  can  clearly  establish  it 
to  be  their  duty,  I  dare  pledge  myself  they  will  make  it. 
Till  both  are  satisfactorily  proved,  it  would  be  highly  un- 
reasonable on  their  part  to  demand  of  the  country  an  acqui- 
escence in  a  practice  so  ruinous.  Our  existence  is  at  stake, 
no  less  than  that  of  England  ;  or,  rather,  the  danger  to  her  is 
imaginary  ;  to  us,  real  and  certain.  An  undeviating  devotion 
to  its  duty  is  the  blood  and  life  of  a  free  state.  Habitual  depar- 
ture from  it  must,  sooner  or  later,  prove  fatal.  It  infuses  a 
poison  into  the  system,  which  will  corrupt  and  destroy.  Take 
this  very  case.  It  is  our  duty, — most  sacredly  our  duty,  to 
protect  the  lives  and  liberties  of  our  citizens  against  foreign 
oppression.  Instead  of  doing  this,  we  have,  for  many  years, 
quietly  beheld  them  forced  into  a  hateful  foreign  service. 
What  has  been  the  reason  of  this  conduct  on  our  part  ? 
The  want  of  power  ?  No  ;  a  vigorous  and  decisive  eifort,  in 
the  very  first  instance, — before  the  enemy  had  learned  to  be 
arrogant  by  our  submission, — would  have  strangled  the  pre- 
tension in  its  birth.  We  yielded  because  we  wished  to  en- 
joy the  blessings  of  peace  ;  its  ease,  its  comforts,  above  all, 
its  means  of  making  money.  The  practical  language  of  the 
Government  to  the  people  was — it  is  better  to  be  rich  than 
to  be  virtuous.  Can  we,  then,  wonder  at  the  alarming 
growth  of  avarice  ?  It  is  to  be  traced  back,  in  part,  to  this 
original  sin  of  our  Government.  The  first  American  citizen 
impressed  and  not  immediately  liberated,  was  good  cause, 
in  my  opinion  imperious  cause,  of  war.  No  calculation  of 
gain  should  have  prevented  it.  To  do  our  duty  is  more  im- 
portant than  to  be  rich. 

Before  I  take  my  leave  of  this  subject  I  will  present  to  the 
committee,  what  I  consider  a  confession  of  the  justice  of  our 
VOL.  u. — 6 


82  SPEECHES. 

cause,  and  the  correctness  of  our  policy.  I  allude  to  the 
habitual  and  obvious  misstatements  which  our  opponents 
make  on  this  subject.  They  say,  we  are  continuing  the  war  in 
order  to  compel  Great  Britain  to  renounce  the  right  of  im- 
pressing her  own  subjects.  They  must  know  that  this  is  not 
the  fact  ;  and  that  the  charge  is  calculated  to  mislead  the 
public  mind.  Why  not  state  the  matter  as  it  really  is  ? 
Why  not  say,  what  they  must  know  to  be  true,  that  the 
war  is  continued,  in  order  to  protect  from  impressment 
American  seamen  ?  Is  it  not  from  a  fear  of  the  public  sen- 
timent ?  And  is  this  not  a  strong  indirect  acknowledgment 
that  the  principles  we  contend  for,  if  understood,  would  meet 
with  kind  and  congenial  feelings  in  the  bosom  of  the  Ame- 
rican people  ?  When  the  head  is  right,  there  is,  among  a 
free  people,  but  little  danger  of  the  heart.  When  they  are 
agreed  in  facts  and  inferences,  they  will  never  disagree  in 
sentiment. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  next  cause  of  the  war, 
the  injuries  done  by  Great  Britain  to  our  commerce.  It  is 
not  my  intention  to  speak  of  them  in  detail,  or  to  consider 
them  as  particular  acts  injurious  to  our  trading  interests. 
This  view  has  been  often  presented,  and  is  well  understood. 

/I  propose  to  ascend  to  their  origin,  and  to  point  out  the 
^spirit  and  principles  of  the  government  from  which  they  have 

(proceeded.  This  view  has  not  yet  been  taken,  though  it  is 
of  the  most  interesting  nature.  The  detail  of  British  in- 
justice may  rouse  our  indignation,  but  it  is  only  by  reflecting 
on  the  principles  and  character  of  her  government,  that  we 
can  justly  appreciate  the  extent  of  our  danger,  and  the  mea- 
sures best  calculated  to  counteract  it.  Even  the  repeal  of 
the  Orders  in  Council,  and  the  consequent  suspension  of 
commercial  injuries,  do  not  strip  this  view  of  the  subject  of 
any  of  its  interest.  For,  it  ought  ever  to  be  remembered, 
that  the  revocation  (June  23d,  1812)  of  the  celebrated 
orders  of  1807  and  1809,  expressly  retains  their  principles. 


SPEECHES.  83 

They,  then,  only  slumber  ;  and,  as  sure  as  we  exist,  her  tem- 
per and  policy  will  rouse  them  into  action  on  the  first  suit- 
able occasion,  unless  prevented  by  the  firm  and  spirited  con- 
duct of  this  and  other  nations  interested  in  a  free  trade. 

The  commercial  policy  of  Great  Britain,  which  has  vexed  // '  . 
and  annihilated  the  commerce  of  every  other  nation,  began  <*/ 
distinctly  to  develop  itself  in  the  year  1756  ;  from  which  ft 
time  to  the  present,  I  assert,  without  the  fear  of  contradic-  / 
tion,  she  has  habitually  struggled  to  enlarge  what  she  terms  £AI 
her  maritime  and  belligerent  rights  on  the  ocean,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  neutrals.  The  assertion  is  based  on  historical  facts, 
which  the  general  information  of  most  of  the  members  of 
this  committee  will  enable  them  to  decide  for  themselves. 
I  have  neither  the  inclination  nor  the  time  to  recite  and 
examine  the  whole  series  in  connection.  I  will  content  my- 
self with  taking  a  brief  notice  of  some  of  the  leading  and 
most  characteristic.  At  their  head,  in  point  of  time,  is  the 
order  which  takes  its  name  from  the  year  already  mentioned, 
and  which  distinctly  marks  the  commencement  of  this  policy. 
The  character  of  this  celebrated  rule  or  order  is  so  well 
known  as  to  require  no  comment.  ^Inthe  war  of  our  Revolu- 
tion, she  still  further  enlarged  her  maritime  and  belligerent 
policy,  particularly  in  the  shape  of  blockades,  since  so  enor- 
mously extended.  This,  with  other  encroachments  at  the 
time,  produced  that  association  of  nations  called  "  THE 
ARMED  NEUTRALITY."  The  object  of  this  was,  to  check 
further  encroachments,  and  to  remedy  those  that  already 
existed.  It  was  acceded  to  by  almost  every  nation  of 
Europe.  On  the  breaking  out  of  the  French  Revolution, 
pursuing  the  same  line  of  policy,  she  made  further  encroach- 
ments. One  of  the  most  considerable,  and  which  was  severe- 
ly felt  by  this  country,  was,  an  enlargement  of  articles  con- 
traband of  war,  so  as  to  extend  them  to  the  numerous  and 
important  articles  of  breadstuff's.  This  was  during  Washing- 
ton's administration  ;  and  constituted  the  principal  one  of 


84  SPEECHES. 

that  period  of  our  history.  Preparations  were  then  made  to 
appeal  to  arms  for  the  redress  of  so  serious  an  injury ;  but 
this  was  prevented  by  England's  agreeing  to  make  compen- 
sation for  the  injuries  which  we  had  sustained.  With  such 
spirit  did  our  Government  then  act,  although  the  injury  then 
sustained  dwindles  into  nothing,  compared  with  the  present ; 
and  with  so  little  accuracy  has  a  gentleman  from  New- York 
(Mr.  Grosvenor)  spoken,  who  not  only  magnified  the  ag- 
gressions of  that  period  above  those  of  the  present,  but 
stated  that  Washington  was  unwilling  to  resort  to  arms  for 
redress.  In  the  present  war  with  France,  her  maritime  and 
commercial  policy  has  hastened  to  its  perfection.  In  the 
year  1805,  it  assumed  an  aspect  most  threatening  to  our 
commerce.  It  fell  on  our  carrying  trade,  at  that  time  in  a 
most  flourishing  condition.  Be  it  remarked — let  it  be  laid, 
up  in  your  memory — that  the  old  rule  of  '56,  the  parent  of  / 
all  these  aggressions,  was  then,  after  many  years,  revived,/ 
and  made  the  apology  for  premeditated  wrongs.  Just  so 
r^ay-w^e^rjectjhe^cevoked  ordersj^^evive.  Blockades  and 
Orders  in  Council  followed  fheclestraction  of  our  carrying 
trade.  They  have  been  too  recent  and  too  severely  felt,  to 
need  a  particular  recital.  Negotiation  was  tried — negotia- 
tion failed ;  and  the  injuries  continuing,  have  ended  in  the 
present  relation  between  the  two  countries. 

The  English  maritime  and  belligerent  policy  is  not  only 
such  as  I  have  stated  it  to  be,  but  it  is  a  policy  peculiar  to 
her,  and  is  in  opposition  to  the  interests  of  the  rest  of  the 
world.  It  is  the  interest  and  wish  of  all  other  civilized  na- 
tions to  ameliorate,  or,  if  the  expression  is  justifiable,  to  hu- 
manize belligerent  rights  on  the  ocean.  England  stands  alone. 
To  establish  this  position,  it  would  be  necessary  to  consider,  a 
little  more  in  detail,  the  series  of  facts  to  which  I  have  already 
alluded  ;  but,  as  I  am  fearful  of  being  tedious,  I  must  check 
my  inclination,  and  confine  myself  to  a  few  observations  only. 

A  signal  proof  of  the  peculiar  policy  of  England  may 


SPEECHES.  85 

be  found  in  the  history  of  the  armed  neutrality,  which 
had  for  its  object,  as  already  observed,  the  restriction  of 
some  of  those  pretended  belligerent  rights.  Russia,  Swe- 
den, Denmark,  Portugal,  Spain,  and  even  France,  though 
then  a  belligerent  power,  acceded  to  it.  England  alone  re- 
fused. It  may,  however,  be  said,  that  France,  too,  has  often 
committed  injuries  on  neutral  trade.  The  fact  is  admitted. 
But,  without  wishing  to  apologize  for  her,  I  conceive  there 
has  been  a  marked  distinction  (arising  out  of  her  situation) 
between  her  conduct  and  that  of  England.  The  latter  has 
steadily  pursued  a  policy  hostile  to  neutral  commerce  on  es- 
tablished principles  ;  the  former  has  been  irregular  in  her 
hostilities,  indicating  more  of  passion  than  of  system.  Be- 
sides, she  has  always  expressed  a  regret  for  her  injuries,  and 
represented  them,  however  unjustifiable,  as  intended  to  coun- 
teract schemes  of  England. 

It  remains  now  to  prove  what  is  the  tendency  of  the 
British  maritime  and  commercial  pofoy ;  and  in  what,  if  not 
counteracted,  it  must  terminate.  -^Reason  and  the  general 
convenience  of  nations  have  for  centuries  established  cer- 
tain usages,  by  which  belligerent  powers  are,  in  many  in- 
stances, restrained  from  doing  all  the  injury  they  can  to 
each  other,  from  a  regard  to  the  interest  of  others.  These 
usages  constitute  the  rights  of  neutrals,  which  are,  for  the 
most  part,  well  defined  by  the  many  writers  on  the  laws  of 
nations.  Under  the  cover  of,  what  she  calls,  her  belligerent 
and  maritime  rights,  the  object  and  tendency  of  the  British 
policy  is,  to  throw  off  those  restraints  on  the  ocean."  It  is, 
in  fact,  to  undo  all  that  has  been  done  in  favor  of  civiliza- 
tion on  that  element,  and  to  return  to  the  lawless  state  of 
barbarous  ages.  It  is  the  interest  of  every  other  power  to 
restrain  her  within  the  limits  of  the  ancient  barriers  ;  for  if 
they  are  once  transcended,  there  are  no  limits  but  what  her 
power  or  interest  may  prescribe.  Neutral  commerce,  as  such, 
will  be  annihilated.  yShe  will  judge  and  decide,  according  to 


86  SPEECHES. 

her  pleasure,  what  is  beneficial  to  her  enemy,  and  what  tc 
herself.  The  former  will  be  destroyed,  the  latter  spared.  Nor 
will  the  evil  stop  here.  The  waves  of  power  are  incessantly 
washing  away  the  mounds  that  restrain  them.  The  transi- 
tion is  easy  from  this  boundless  extension  of  her  belligerent 
policy,  to  a  system  of  universal  monopoly,  in  peace  as  well  as 
in  war — a  system  which  considers  the  ocean  as  her  peculiar 
domain. 

I  omitted,  in  its  proper  place,  an  argument  which 
strongly  illustrates  this  part  of  the  subject  ;  I  allude  to  the 
great  changes  made  in  the  British  courts  of  admiralty. 
Formerly,  they  held  jurisdiction,  like  all  similar  tribunals  in 
other  countries,  under  the  laws  of  nations  only.  They  were 
as  the  creatures  of  those  laws,  and  intended  only  to  carry 
their  rules  into  execution.  They  were,  of  course,  not  under 
the  municipal  laws  of  the  country  where  they  happened  to 
be  located,  as  far  as  it  regarded  the  rules  of  their  decisions. 
Thus  constituted,  they  were  one  of  the  principal  ornaments 
of  the  civilization  of  modern  times.  The  whole  of  this  is 
now  reversed.  The  courts  of  admiralty  receive  laws  as  regu- 
larly from  the  British  Government,  as  those  of  Westminster. 
The  only  difference  is,  that  the  statutes  of  Parliament  pre- 
scribe the  rules  of  decision  to  the  one,  and  the  Orders  in 
Council  to  the  other.  It  is  thus  that  England  legislates  for 
the  ocean,  and,  consequently,  for  the  world,  on  that  great 
highway,  and  has  her  proper  tribunals,  with  commensurate 
jurisdiction,  to  carry  into  effect  her  laws.  But  why  should 
I  consume  time  to  prove  her  maritime  policy  ?  Who  is 
there  so  stupid  as  not  to  see  and  feel  its  effect  ?  You  can- 
not look  towards  her  shores  and  not  behold  it.  You  may 
see  it  in  her  parliament,  her  prints,  her  theatres,  and  in  her 
very  songs.  It  is  scarcely  disguised.  It  is  her  pride  and 
boast.  The  nature  of  her  policy  is  then  manifest  and  ad- 
mitted ;  but  it  will  be  asked,  how  can  you  counteract  it  ? 
I  answer,  by  the  measures  now  being  pursued  ;  by  force,  by 


SPEECHES.  87 

war  ;  not  by  remonstrance,  not  by  negotiation,  and  still  less 
by  leaving  it  to  itself.  The  nature  of  its  growth  indicates 
its  remedy.  It  originated  in  power — has  grown  in  propor- 
tion as  opposing  power  has  been  removed — and  can  only  be 
restrained  by  power.  Nations^  a,re,  for  the  most  £art,  not  re- 
strained by  moral  principles,  but  by  fear.  It  is  an  old  max- 
im, that  they  have  heads,  but  no  hearts.  They  see  their 
own  interests,  but  do  not  sympathize  in  the  wrongs  of  oth- 
ers. Such  is  the  fact  in  relation  to  England.  When  neu- 
trals are  numerous  and  powerful,  their  rights  are,  in  some 
degree,  respected  by  her  ;  when  few  and  inconsiderable,  de- 
spised. This  last  has  been  the  unfortunate  state  of  the  • 
world  for  the  last  twenty  years.  That  counteracting  influ- 
ence, that  repulsive  power  by  which  she  was  bound  to  her 
proper  orbit,  has  been  almost  wholly  removed.  This  coun- 
try alone  was  left  to  support  the  rights  which  belong  to  neu- 
trals. Perilous  was  the  condition,  and  arduous  the  task. 
We  were  not  intimidated.  C  We  stood  opposed  to  her  usurpa- 
tion, and,  by  our  spirit  and  efforts,  have  done  all  in  our  pow- 
er to  save  the  last  vestiges  of  neutral  rights.  Embargoes, 
non-intercourse,  non-importation,  and,  finally,  war,  were  all 
manly  exertions  to  preserve  the  rights  of  this,  and  of  all 
other  nations,  from  the  deadly  grasp  of  British  maritime 
policy.7 

But,  say  our  opponents,  these  efforts  are  vain — and  our 
condition  hopeless.  If  so,  it  only  remains  for  us  to  assume 
the  habit  of  our  condition.  We  must  submit — humbly  sub- 
mit— crave  pardon — and  hug  our  chains.  It  is  not  wise  to 
provoke,  where  we  cannot  resist.  But  let  us  be  well  assured 
of  the  hopeless  nature  of  our  condition  before  we  sink  into 
submission.  On  what  do  our  opponents  rest  this  despondent 
and  slavish  belief?  On  the  recent  events  in  Europe  ?  I  ad- 
mit they  are  great,  and  well  calculated  to  impose  on  the 
imagination.  Our  enemy  never  presented  a  more  imposing 
exterior.  His  fortune  is  at  the  flood.  "Rnt  T  am  arlmon-  r 


88  SPEECHES. 

ished  bj  universal  experience,  that  such  prosperity  is  the 
most  fickle  of  human  conditions.  From  the  flood  the  tide 
dates  its  ebb  ;  from  the  meridian,  the  sun  commences  his 
decline.  There  is  more  of  sound  philosophy  than  fiction  in 
the  fickleness  which  poets  attribute  to  fortune.  Prosper- 
it^MOSsISeaEnfifiS^adversity  its  strength.  In  many  re- 
spects our  enemy  has  lost  by  those  very  changes  which  seem 
to  be  so  much  in  his  favor.  He  can  now  no  more  claim  to 
be  struggling  for  existence  ;  no  more,  to  be  fighting  the  bat- 
tles of  the  world,  in  defence  of  the  liberties  of  mankind.  The 
magic  cry  of  French  influence,  is  lost ./  Hence  were  drawn 
those  motives  which  stimulated  her  efforts  into  fiercest  ac- 
tion, which  united  the  continent  to  her  cause,  and,  in  some 
degree,  damped  the  ardor  of  her  rival  in  power.  Even  here, 
in  this  very  hall,  we  are  not  strangers  to  its  magic  tones. — 
Even  here  the  cry  of  French  influence,  that  baseless  fiction, 
that  phantom  of  faction,  though  now  banished,  once  often  re- 
sounded. I  rejoice  that  the  spell  is  broken,  by  which  it  was 
attempted  to  bind  the  generous  spirit  of  this  country.  The 
minority  can  no  longer  act  under  cover ;  but  will  be  obliged 
to  defend  their  opposition  on  its  intrinsic  merits. 

It  is  not  in  this  respect  only,  that  our  enemy  has  lost  by 
the  late  events.  The  tremendous  and  exhausting  conflicts 
of  this,  and  the  preceding  campaign,  seem,  at  last,  to  dispose 
the  continental  powers  to  peace.  If  they  have  a  just  con- 
ception of  their  true  interest,  and  are  not  prevented  by  Brit- 
ish gold  and  intrigue,  a  continental  peace  will  ensue.  There 
certainly  is  much  alarm  in  England  on  the  probability  of 
such  an  event.  Should  it,  fortunately,  be  the  case — should 
the  allies  prove  content  with  their  fortune,  and  France  sub- 
mit to  her  present  limits,  all  Europe  must  speedily  combine 
against  the  British  maritime  policy.  The  great  power  on 
land  being  crushed,  to  use  the  language  of  our  opponents — 
but  more  properly  being  forced  within  proper  limits,  the 
great  monopolist  of  the  ocean  will,  I  trust,  be  the  next  ob- 


SPEECHES.  89 

ject  of  fear  and  resistance.  /The  principle  of  the  armed  neu- 
trality is  not,  and  cannot  be  forgotten.  It  exists  essentially 
in  the  policy  of  modem  Europe.  Ever  since  the  discovery 
of  the  passage  round  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  of  this 
continent,  on  which  we  enjoy  the  proud  pre-eminence  of  be- 
ing the  first  great  civilized  power,  a  great  change  has  been 
gradually  working  in  Europe.  For  two  centuries,  the  char- 
acter of  that  part  of  the  world  has  been  eminently  trading 
and  commercial.  The  habits  of  every  part  are  formed  more 
or  less  on  this  state  of  things.  There  lives  scarcely  a  human 
being,  from  the  ice  and  snows  of  Siberia  to  the  sunny  plains 
of  Italy,  who  has  not  some  habit,  the  gratification  of  which 
depends  on  commerce.  Hence  it  has  become  an  object  of 
primary  policy.  The  wars  in  Europe,  for  many  years  past, 
have,  with  few  exceptions,  been,  more  or  less,  connected  with 
it.  The  policy  of  every  court  has  been  to  obtain  commercial 
supplies  on  the  best  terms,  and,  as  much  as  possible,  through 
the  agency  of  their  own  subjects.  With  such  habits  and 
policy,  it  is  impossible  they  can  behold  with  indifference  the 
monopoly  of  Great  Britain.  They  will  not  quietly  suffer 
the  common  highway  of  nations,  intended  by  a  kind  Provi- 
dence for  the  common  intercourse  and  benefit  of  all,  to  bo 
converted  into  her  exclusive  domain.  No  ;  the  ocean  cannot 
become  property.  Like  light  and  air,  it  is  insusceptible  of 
the  idea  of  property.  Heaven  has  given  it  to  man  equally, 
freely,  bountifully ;  and  all  empires  attempted  to  be  raised 
on  it,  must  partake  of  the  fickleness  of  its  waves.  A  policy 
so  injurious  to  the  common  interests  of  mankind,  must,  soon- 
er or  later,  unite  the  world  against  herr  For  many  years 
her  encroachments  have  advanced  without  exciting  much  jea- 
lousy. The  attention  of  all  the  nations  of  Europe  has  been 
exclusively  directed  to  the  maintenance  of  their  existence, 
menaced  by  the  power  of  France.  To  preserve  4  life  was 
more  important  than  to  acquire  comfort ;  so  to  resist  that 
power  was  more  imperious  than  to  oppose  England.  Libe- 


90  SPEECHES. 

rated  now  from  fear,  they  will  soon  have  leisure  to  attend  to 
their  interests.  The  difference  between  our  policy  and  that 
of  other  nations,  in  this  respect,  is  only  in  appearance,  and 
not  in  reality.  Each  acted  in  a  manner  suited  to  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  it  found  itself.  Attachment  to  France, 
as  proclaimed  by  British  partisans,  formed  no  part  of  our 
policy.  We  were  safe  from  the  danger  with  which  her  power 
menaced  other  nations.  A  broad  ocean  was  our  immediate 
security.  We  resisted  the  power  which  then  and- now  press- 
es on  us,  and  which  will  soon  cause  itself  to  be  felt  and  re- 
sisted by  all.  Should  the  course  of  events  be  such  as  I  have 
indicated,  then  will  the  wisdom  and  spirit  of  our  country  be 
universally  applauded.  Our  situation  was  trying  and  respon- 
sible. We,  alone,  had  to  sustain  all  the  rights  and  duties 
which  attach  to  the  neutral  character.  We  were  not  intim- 
idated by  its  difficulties.  We  dared,  single-handed  as  we  were, 
to  make  a  stand  against  the  favorite  and  obstinate  policy  of 
our  enemy.  The  present  and  temporary  interests  of  commerce 
were  nobly  surrendered  for  its  permanent  advantages.  The 
example  can  scarcely  fail  to  produce  its  effect.  But  if,  un- 
fortunately, we  should  be  left  alone  to  maintain  the  contest ; 
and  if,  in  consequence  (which  may  God  forbid),  necessity 
should  compel  us  to  yield  for  the  present,  yet  our  generous 
efforts  will  not  have  been  in  vain.  A  mode  of  thinking,  and 
a  tone  of  sentiment  have  been  excited,  which  must  stimulate 
to  future  and  more  successful  struggles.  What  we  may  not 
be  able  to  effect  with  eight  millions  of  people,  will  be  done 
with  twenty.  The  great  cause  will  not  be  yielded.  No  ; 
never  !  never  !  We  cannot  renounce  our  rights  to  the  ocean 
which  Providence  has  spread  before  our  doors  ;  nor  will  we 
ever  hold  that,  which  is  the  immediate  gift  of  Heaven,  under 
the  license  of  any  nation.  We  have  already  had  success 
worthy  of  our  cause./ The  future  is  audibly  pronounced  by 
the  splendid  victories  over  the  Guerriere,  Java,  and  Macedo- 
nian. We  and  all  nations,  are,  in  them,  taught  a  lesson 


SPEECHES.  91 

never  to  be  forgotten.  Opinion  is  power.  The  charm  of 
British  naval  invincibility  is  broken.  / 

In  this,  the  only  just  view  of  our  contest,  how  pitiful 
appear  the  objections  of  our  opponents !  Some  pecuniary 
difficulties  in  Massachusetts,  and  in  other  places!  And 
must  we,  for  them,  renounce  our  lasting  prosperity  and 
greatness  ?  Have  we  no  fortitude  ? — no  self-command  ? 
Must  we,  like  children,  yield  to  the  impulse  of  present 
pleasure,  however  fatal  ?  If  the  maritime  parts  of  Massa- 
chusetts  suffer,  let  them  remember,  that  if  the  war  should 
be  successful — if  our  future  commerce  and  navigation  should 
be  secured,  they  will  partake  most  largely  in  the  advan- 
tages,  common  and  great,  indeed,  to  all,  but  peculiarly  so  to 
them. 

Suppose  that  our  opponents,  who  object  to  every  thing, 
had  been  at  the  helm  of  government,  and  that  an  opposite 
line  of  policy  had  been  pursued  : — no  embargoes — no  non- 
intercourse — no  non-importation  acts — no  war — and,  in  fact, 
no  resistance  to  the  injuries  and  aggressions  of  Great  Britain  ; 
who  can  be  ignorant  of  what  would  have  been  the  conse- 
quence ?  They  would  have  multiplied  in  number  and  de- 
gree, till  our  commerce  would  have  been  annihilated.  Unre- 
sisted,  they  would  have  constituted  future  principles,  and 
our  acquiescence  been  construed  into  an  acknowledgment  of 
their  truth.  ^£hen  would  we  have  felt — what  the  experience 
of  all  ages  has  taught — that  it  is  far  more  easy  to  maintain, 
than  to  wrest  back  usurped  rights.  Wrongs,  submitted  to, 
produce  contrary  effects  in  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed. 
Oppression  strengthens  and  prepares  for  new  oppression ; 
submission  debases  to  further  submission^  The  first  wrong, 
by  the  universal  law  of  our  nature/is  most  easily  re- 
sisted. It  excites  the  greatest  degree  of  union  and  indig- 
nation. Let  that  be  submitted  to ;  let  the  consequent 
debasement  and  loss  of  national  honor  be  felt  ;  and  nothing 
but  the  grinding  hand  of  oppression  can  force  to  resistance. 


92  SPEECHES. 

I  know  not  which  to  pronounce  the  most  guilty  :  the  nation 
that  inflicts  a  wrong,  or  that  which  quietly  submits  to  it. 
In  other  respects,  the  difference  is  marked.  The  formed 
may  be  hated,  but  is  respected — at  least  feared  ;  while  the 
latter  is  below  pity,  or  any  other  feeling  of  the  human  heart 
but  sovereign  contempt.  In  submission,  then,  there  is  no 
remedy  :  our  honor  lost ;  our  commerce  under  the  control  of 
our  oppressor ; — what  next  ?  The  hopes  and  fears  (those 
universal  instruments  of  government)  of  the  whole  mercan- 
tile section  of  this  country,  and  all  connected  interests, 
would  be  turned  towards  Great  Britain  ;  for  the  power  of 
legislation  over  our  commerce  would  be  virtually  transferred 
from  the  American  Congress  to  the  King  in  Council.  Need 
I  trace  the  consequence  ?  Need  I  paint  the  corrupt  and 
debasing  influences  ?  The  beams  of  the  mid-day  sun  are 
scarcely  more  clear.  The  very  contempt  which  such  base- 
ness would  excite — -justly  excite — in  our  enemy,  would  in- 
sure our  subjugation.  It  is  impossible  to  allow  any  right, 
much  less  independence,  to  that  which  creeps  and  licks  the 
dust.  Such  is  the  condition  of  our  nature.  We  must  have 
the  spirit  to  resist  wrong,  or  be  slaves.  Such  were  the  alter- 
natives presented  to  our  country,  and  such  would  have 
been  the  result  of  the  opposite  policy,  now  recommended  and 
applauded  by  our  opponents. 

^fi' have  now  said  all  I  intended  on  this  most  interesting 
view  of  our  cause.  It  has  an  elevation  and  clearness  which 
renders  it  attractive  to  my  mind.  I  love  to  dwell  on  it,  be- 
cause it  imparts  a  steady  and  clear  conviction  of  the  wisdom 
and  necessity  of  that  course  of  measures,  to  the  adoption  of 
which,  it  is  my  pride  to  have  in  part  contributed.  I  feel 
how  little  interesting  all  the  common  topics  of  opposition 
are,  after  the  view  already  taken.  The  descent  gives  a  shock, 
which  I  know  the  committee  will  partake  with  him  who  is 
addressing  them.  If,  however,  they  will  continue  their  at- 
tention, I  will  offer  a  few  observations  on  a  subject  which 


SPEECHES.  93 

has  made  a  principal  figure  in  the  speeches  of  our  opponents. 
I  allude  to  the  character  which  they  give  to  this  war,  as 
offensive,  and  not  defensive.  On  this  point,  I  spoke  fully 
when  the  Army  Bill  was  under  consideration.  What  was 
then  said,  has  been  introduced  and  objected  to  on  this  occa^ 
sion.  I  then  stated,  that  the  difference  between  an  offensive 
and  defensive  war  consisted  in  the  motive  and  cause.  If,  for 
instance,  a  war  is  forced  on  the  nation  waging  it,  by  the  op- 
pression of  that  against  which  it  is  declared,  it  would  be  de- 
fensive, however  it  might  be  carried  on ;  but  if,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  originated  in  ambition,  or  any  other  improper 
motive,  it  would  be  offensive.  This  distinction  is  not  only 
supported  by  reason,  but  by  the  declamation  of  our  oppo- 
nents. They  have,  for  almost  two  years,  been  in  the  habit 
of  denouncing  offensive  war.  They,  then,  acknowledge  that 
such  a  war  is  wicked  ;  and  how  can  it  bear  that  character 
but  by  its  cause  ?  It  seems,  now,  that  they  have  changed 
their  grounds.  We  hear  no  more  of  the  wickedness  of 
offensive  war  ;  but,  what  is  most  strange,  all  their  efforts  are 
directed  to  prove,  that  it  may  be  an  innocent  and  virtuous 
thing.  That  nation,  say  they,  is  engaged  in  an  offensive 
war,  who  first  assumes  a  warlike  attitude.  However  just, 
however  necessary  the  cause,  the  war  is  still  offensive.  Be 
it  so.  I  care  not  for  words.  My  answer  is  decisive.  If  my 
conception  be  just,  that  an  offensive  war  is  to  be  tested  by 
the  cause,  I  then  pronounce  ours  not  to  be  of  that  character  ; 
but,  if  their  definition  be  correct,  then  an  offensive  war  may 
be  most  just,  most  virtuous,  and  necessary ;  and  all  their 
declamation  against  it  is  idle  and  unmeaning  rant.  I  tender 
an  option,  and  care  not  which  is  taken.  They  who  defend 
a  bad  cause,  act  imprudently  in  descending  to  particulars. 
Our  opponents,  by  doing  so  in  this  case,  have  furnished  the 
best  reply  to  their  own  arguments. 

On  expatriation  and  retaliation  I  will  say  nothing.    The 
hour  is  late,  and  I  feel  myself  somewhat  exhausted.     I  pass 


94  SPEECHES. 

them  by  the  more  cheerfully,  as  the  gentleman  from  Louisi- 
ana (Mr.  Kobertson)  and  my  colleague  have  replied  fully 
to  the  objection  urged  on  those  subjects.  Before  I  proceed 
further,  it  will  be  necessary  to  restate  the  propositions  with 
which  I  commenced,  so  that  the  entire  chain  of  the  argument 
— both  that  which  has  already  been  advanced,  and  what 
remains  to  be  submitted — may  be  distinctly  seen. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  I  reduced  all  the  arguments 
and  objections  of  our  opponents  to  the  passage  of  this  bill, 
under  two  general  heads.  First,  that  the  loan  cannot  be 
had ;  or  must  be  obtained,  if  at  all,  at  an  exorbitant  interest. 
Second,  that  if  it  can  be,  still  it  ought  not  to  be  granted, 
because  the  war  is  unjust  and  inexpedient.  I  also  stated, 
that  the  latter  comprehended  the  assertion  of  the  injustice 
and  inexpediency  of  the  war,  and  the  assumed  inference, 
that,  if  true,  the  minority  would  be  justified  in  their  oppo- 
sition both  to  the  bill  and  to  the  war.  On  the  alleged  in- 
justice and  inexpediency  of  the  war  I  have  presented  my 
opinions,  and,  I  trust,  satisfied  the  committee  that  its  justice 
is  demonstrably  clear,  and  its  expediency  unquestionable  ; 
or  rather,  its  necessity  imperious,  if  the  preservation  of  the 
independence  of  the  country  constitutes  political  necessity. 

But  is  it  justifiable  to  withhold  the  loan,  even  admitting 
the  war  to  be,  as  alleged  by  our  opponents,  unjust  and  inex- 
pedient ?  This  is  the  question  now  proposed  to  be  discussed. 
It  contains  the  practical  consequence  of  all  that  has  been 
said  in  opposition.  Few  propositions  involve  principles  so 
deeply  connected  with  the  lasting  prosperity  of  our  repub- 
lican institutions  ;  and,  in  regard  to  which,  consequently,  it 
is  more  necessary  to  think  correctly.  Error  here  cannot  be 
indifferent.  A  false  mode  of  thinking  must  endanger  the 
existence  of  the  republic.  I  must,  then,  again  entreat  the 
attentive  and  deliberate  audience  of  the  committee,  while 
I  offer  my  opinions  and  reasons  on  so  interesting  a  subject. 

In  considering  the  question, — how  far,  in  a  war,  thought 


SPEECHES.  95 

to  be  unjust  or  improper  by  any  portion  of  the  people,  they 
would  be  warranted  in  their  opposition,  after  it  is  constitu- 
tionally declared, — I  shall  leave  out  of  view  such  as  involve 
extreme  or  flagrant  injustice.  A  war,  impious  or  sacrilegious, 
cannot  be  governed  by  the  general  rules  which  apply  to  or- 
dinary cases.  At  least,  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  consider 
such  extreme  cases,  as  none  can  impute  such  a  character  to 
the  present. 

I  have  already  stated  that  the  sum  proposed  to  be  raised 
by  this  bill,  is  indispensably  necessary  to  meet  the  expenses 
of  the  ensuing  year;  and  that,  if  it  is  withheld,  it  must 
communicate  a  fatal  shock  to  public  credit.  In  that  event, 
not  only  the  invasion  of  Canada  would  be  prevented,  which 
some  gentlemen  state  to  be  their  object,  but  the  whole  oper- 
ations of  the  war — even  viewed  as  defensive  in  the  strictest 
sense — would  be  abandoned.  Officers  and  soldiers  will  no 
more  serve  in  our  garrisons  than  in  Canada  without  pay.  It 
is  idle  to  talk  of  only  preventing  the  reduction  of  the  enemy's 
provinces  by  withholding  the  loan.  Nor  can  gentlemen  be 
serious.  They  have  opposed  every  attempt  to  raise  supplies, 
in  whatever  shape  it  has  appeared.  They  appear  to  be  bold 
in  facing  bankruptcy.  But  have  they  reflected  on  the  dis- 
astrous effects  of  their  efforts,  should  they  be  successful  ? 
The  old  and  recent  creditors  of  the  Grovernment,  the  army, 
the  navy, — which  they  boast  of  cherishing, — in  a  word,  every 
individual  would  feel  the  calamity  ;  for  private,  no  less  than 
public  credit  would  partake  of  the  shock.  I  am  wholly  at 
a  loss  to  perceive  on  what  principle  of  expediency,  policy, 
or  morality,  such  conduct  can  be  justified.  Surely  it  is  not 
a  self-evident  proposition,  that,  because  the  war  is  simply 
unjust  and  inexpedient,  in  the  opinion  of  the  minority,  there- 
fore, they  have  a  right  to  involve  the  country  in  ruin,  and 
place  it,  bound  as  a  suppliant,  at  the  feet  of  a  haughty 
enemy.  They,  then,  ought  to  state  some  intelligible  and 
satisfactory  principle  on  which  this  conduct  may  be  justified. 


96  SPEECHES. 

I  have  sought  with  attention,. but  have  not  found,  the  sem- 
blance of  such  an  one.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  analogies 
of  private  life,  as  well  as  of  reason,  forbid  and  condemn  the 
conduct  of  our  opponents.  Suppose  a  father  to  do  some  act, 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  a  son,  is  not  strictly  just  or  proper, 
by  which  he  becomes  involved  in  a  contest  with  a  stranger, 
would  the  son  be  justified  in  taking  part  against  him  ?  How 
much  less,  then,  can  any  party  be  in  opposition  to  their 
country  in  a  war  with  another  nation  ?  for  it  stands  in  the 
place  of  the  common  parent  of  all ;  and  comprehends,  to  use 
the  language  of  a  member  from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Gaston), 
"att  the  charities  of  life." 

But  what  must  be  thought  of  the  motives  and  conduct 
of  the  minority,  when  I  state  that  much  the  greater  part  of 
the  expenses  of  the  war,  for  which  this  bill  is  intended  in 
part  to  provide,  has  been  incurred  by  their  votes  as  much  as 
by  those  of  the  majority  ?  I  hold  in  my  hands  the  journal 
of  the  first  session  of  the  Twelfth  Congress  ;  by  which  it 
appears,  that  the  Keport  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Kela- 
tions  was  supported  not  only  by  the  votes  on  this  side  of  the 
House,  but  by  a  decided  majority  on  the  other.  The  report 
ended  in  recommending  six  resolutions  to  the  adoption  of 
the  House  : — To  fill  up  the  old  establishment ;  to  raise  ten 
thousand  additional  troops ;  to  increase  the  navy  ;  to  provide 
for  calling  out  the  militia  ;  and  to  authorize  the  arming  of 
private  vessels.  On  the  first  of  these,  there  was  a  minority 
of  eleven  votes  only  :  so  unanimous  was  this  House  at  that 
time  !  On  some  of  the  others,  it  is  true,  it  was  more  con- 
siderable ;  but  all  met  with  the  support  of  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side.  What  ought  to  be  particularly  noted  is,  that 
when  the  Senate  and  this  House  disagreed  on  the  second 
resolution, — to  raise  an  additional  number  of  regular  troops, 
the  former  supporting  twenty-five  thousand  men,  and  the 
latter,  at  first,  ten  thousand  men,  the  Senate's  proposition, 
increasing  the  number,  was  passed  by  the  votes  of  the  mi- 


SPEECHES.  97 

nority.  The  leading  men  on  the  side  of  the  opposition  at 
that  time — among  whom  was  a  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts, well  known  in  this  country  (Mr.  Quincy),  and  another 
from  New- York,  of  great  influence  (Mr.  Emmot),  and  many 
whom  I  now  behold — voted  for  the  report.  I  have  taken  the 
trouble  to  turn  down  the  pages  where  the  respective  votes 
are  recorded,  for  the  satisfaction  of  any  member  who  may 
desire  to  see  them.  With  what  countenance  can  our  oppo- 
nents, then,  withhold  the  supplies  for  expenses  incurred  by 
their  own  votes  ?  Will  they  say  that  they  knew  not  the 
object  of  the  report  ?  Miserable  the  excuse — and  such  as 
it  is,  not  founded  on  fact.  War  with  Great  Britain  was  un- 
equivocally announced ;  and  even  the  invasion  of  Canada, 
now  so  hateful  to  them,  was  distinctly  avowed.  Was  their 
object  to  embarrass,  and,  finally,  to  put  the  majority  out  of 
power  ?  Will  they  dare  to  make  an  avowal  so  disgraceful 
to  their  party  ?  The  truth  is,  that  the  necessity  of  the  war 
was,  at  that  time,  almost  universally  acknowledged  ;  and,  as 
to  its  justice,  no  one  doubted  it.  Its  injustice  was  an  inven- 
tion of  a  period  long  subsequent.  It  is  thus  that  consistency, 
no  less  than  reason,  ought  to  check  the  minority  in  their 
opposition,  and  to  induce  them  to  unite  with  us  to  carry  on 
the  war  to  a  successful  issue. 

I  would  be  glad  to  know  what  limits  our  opponents  have 
prescribed  to  their  opposition.  If  the  supplies  may  be  with- 
held because  the  war  is  unjust  and  improper  in  their  opinion, 
will  not  the  same  reason  justify  every  species  of  resistance, 
both  in  and  out  of  this  House  ?  If  the  public  faith  solemnly 
plighted — if  the  happiness  of  the  country,  are  no  checks  to 
opposition,  I  see  no  reason  why  the  laws  or  the  constitution 
should  be.  Let  some  intelligible  limitation  be  prescribed. 
I  see  none — to  me  it  appears  lawless.  I  know  it  will  be 
said, — Is  all  opposition  to  be  proscribed  ?  Is  none  justi- 
fiable ?  We  proscribe  nothing.  We  propose  no  law, — no 
restraint  on  the  conduct  of  the  minority.  We  appeal  to  the 

VOL.   II. — 7 


98  SPEECHES. 

virtue  and  the  intelligence  of  the  community  only.  On  the 
people  must  finally  fall  the  ruinous  effects  of  erroneous  and 
dangerous  principles.  If  our  liberty  be  lost,  theirs  will  be 
the  cost.  Our  constitution  supposes  a  degree  of  good  sense 
and  virtue  in  them  adequate  to  self-government.  If  the 
fact  be  not  so,  our  system  of  government  is  founded  in  error. 
They,  only,  can  arrest  the  effects  of  dangerous  opposition. 
What  they  permanently  condemn  will  meet  with  no  support 
here. 

How  far  the  minority  in  a  state  of  war,  may  justly 
oppose  the  measures  of  Government,  is  a  question  of  the 
greatest  delicacy.  On  the  one  side,  an  honest  man,  if  he 
believe  the  war  to  be  unjust  or  unwise,  will  not  disavow  his 
opinion.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  an  upright  citizen  will  do 
no  act,  whatever  he  may  think  of  the  war,  to  put  his  country 
in  the  power  of  the  enemy.  It  is  this  double  aspect  of  the 
subject  which  indicates  the  course  that  reason  approves. 
Among  ourselves,  at  home,  we  may  contend  ;  but  whatever 
may  be  requisite  to  give  the  reputation  and  arms  of  the 
republic  a  superiority  over  its  enemy,  it  is  the  duty  of  all, 
the  minority  no  less  than  the  majority,  to  support.  Like 
the  system  of  our  State  and  General  governments, — within, 
they  are  many, — to  the  world  but  one, — so  it  ought  to  be 
with  parties  : — among  ourselves,  we  may  divide, — but  in 
relation  to  other  nations,  there  ought  to  be  only  the  Ameri- 
can people.  In  some  cases  it  may  possibly  be  doubtful,  even 
to  the  most  conscientious,  how  to  act.  This  is  one  of  the  mis- 
fortunes of  differing  from  the  rest  of  the  community  on  the 
subject  of  war. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  alluding  to  an  observation  made 
by  a  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Gaston),  con- 
nected with  this  view  of  the  subject.  Speaking  of  the 
reduction  of  Canada,  he  observed,  that  his  judgment  and 
feelings  were  at  variance  ;  that  when  he  consulted  the 
former,  he  believed  our  efforts  would  be  unsuccessful ;  but 


SPEECHES.  99 

when  the  latter,  his  regard  to  the  interest  of  his  country 
led  him  to  hope  for  success.  I  do  not  allude  to  this  observa- 
tion with  a  view  to  point  out  any  contradiction  between  it  and 
his  opposition  to  the  passage  of  this  bill ;  though  I  think  it 
would  be  difficult  to  reconcile  them.  My  object  is  to  make 
an  open  acknowledgment  to  him,  for  what  I  think  the 
commencement  of  a  more  correct  mode  of  thinking  in  rela- 
tion to  the  war.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  his  good  wishes ; 
and  for  that  expressed  in  relation  to  the  reduction  of  Canada. 
I  know  it  does  not  contain  an  approbation  of  the  attempted 
conquest ;  but  it  comports  with  the  conduqt  of  a  good 
citizen, — since  the  attempt  is  determined  on  by  the  consti- 
tuted authorities, — to  wish  it  well.  This  seems  to  me  to 
be  in  the  true  spirit  of  an  honest  opposition  ;  and  I  hope  it 
will  be  so  extended  as  to  influence  the  general  conduct  of  the 
minority.  It  is  thus  we  may  divide  among  ourselves,  and 
the  national  strength  be  left  unimpaired.  For  I  do  not 
agree  with  those  members  of  the  minority,  who  assert  there 
is  no  loss  of  strength  by  their  opposition.  We  are  asked  by 
them,  "  Why  have  you  not  effected  your  object  ?  You  com- 
mand the  purse  and  the  sword  of  the  country,  and  can  order 
whatever  is  necessary  to  be  done.  I  answer : — Because  we 
have  not  your  good  wishes.  This  only  can  add  heart  to 
heart./  G-overnment,  it  is  true,  can  command  the  arm  and 
hand,  the  bone  and  muscle  of  the  nation  ;  but  these  are 
powerless — nerveless,  without  the  concurring  good  wishes  of 
the  community.  He  who,  in  estimating  the  strength  of  a 
people,  looks  only  to  their  numbers  and  physical  force,  leaves 
out  of  the  reckoning  the  most  material  elements  of  power 
— union  and  zeal.  Without  these,  the  former  is  inert  matter. 
Without  these,  a  free  people  is  degraded  to  the  miserable 
rabble  of  a  despotism  ;  but  with  these,  they  are  irresistible./ 
The  same  gentleman  made  an  assertion  which  I  am  bound 
to  contradict.  He  asserted,  without  attempting  to  prove, 
that  this  House  has  degenerated  into  .a  mere  registering 


100  SPEECHES. 

body  of  executive  edicts.  A  sense  of  decorum  prevents  ma 
from  speaking  of  the  charge  with  merited  severity.  I  will 
not  meet  the  assertion  with  arguments,  but  assertion.  It  is 
easy  to  assert,  but  slow  and  difficult  to  prove  :  It  were  hope- 
less to  oppose  the  latter  to  the  former  ; — the  creeping  pace 
of  the  one  is  no  match  for  the  winged  rapidity  of  the  other. 
I  then  assert,  that  what  the  gentleman  has  said  is  untrue  in 
fact. 

[Here  Mr.  G.  entered  into  some  explanation,  and  denied  the  use 
of  the  word  "  registering  "  ;  and  concluded  by  wishing  to  know,  in 
what  sense  Mr.  C.  used  the  word,  untrue. 

Mr.  C.  said,  simply  as  implying,  that  the  fact  is  not  as  Mr.  G. 
stated ;  and  that  he  had  too  much  respect  for  him  to  have  used  it  in 
any  other  sense.  He  then  proceeded.] 

Some  arguments  and  observations  of  mine  on  a  former 
occasion,  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  character  of  opposition, 
have,  in  this  debate,  called  forth  replies  from  many  of  the 
minority,  and  particularly  from  the  gentleman  just  alluded 
to.  He  asserted  that  a  majority  might  also  be  a  faction,  and 
citing  the  Federalist  in  proof  of  this  position,  stated  the  ad- 
ditional fact,  that,  when  it  is  one,  it  is  far  more  dangerous 
than  a  factious  minority.  If  the  gentleman  had  been  more 
attentive,  he  would  have  found  that  there  was  nothing  in  my 
arguments  to  contradict  the  position  taken  in  the  Federalist. 
What  I  said  was  in  reply  ;  and  was  intended  to  refute  the 
assertion  of  our  opponents  on  that  occasion-: — that  all  the 
misfortunes  and  miseries  of  free  States  originated  in  the 
blunders  and  folly  of  majorities.  The  error  of  this  opinion  I 
then  sufficiently  exposed,  both  by  experience  and  reason.  It 
has  found  no  advocate  on  this  occasion.  I  will  not  again 
repeat  the  reasons  ;  but  simply  restate — that  opposition,  in 
free  States,  is  strongly  inclined  to  degenerate  into  a  struggle 
for  power  and  ascendency,  in  which  attachment  to  party 
becomes  stronger  than  attachment  to  country.  This  opinion, 
I  conceive,  is  incontrovertibly  established  ;  in  fact,  its  truth 


SPEECHES.  101 

is  but  too  manifest  to  all  who  have  looked  into  the  character 
of  man,  or  are  acquainted  with  his  history.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  feel  no  disposition  to  deny  that  the  majority  may, 
possibly,  become  factious — that  is,  cease  to  consult  the  gen- 
eral interest.  I  claimed  no  peculiar  exemption  for  them — it 
made  no  part  of  my  argument — I  stated  principles,  but  left 
their  application  to  the  good  sense  of  the  community.  Much 
less  do  I  feel  disposed  to  contest  the  position  that,  if  such  a 
majority  could,  and  should,  by  any  misfortune,  exist  in  this 
country,  it  would  be  more  dangerous  than  a  factious  minority. 
I  cannot  doubt,  for  instance,  that  if  the  present  minority 
could  be  swelled  into  a  majority  by  the  addition  of  one-third 
more  to  their  ranks,  and  that  they  should,  when  in  power, 
retain  all  the  principles  which  I  hear  them  daily  advance  in 
this  House,  they  would  not  only  be  more  dangerous  than  they 
now  are — when  their  power  is,  to  divide  and  distract ;  but 
that  it  would  be  the  greatest  calamity  that  could  befall  our 
country. 

A  very  important  view  of  the  subject  yet  remains  to  be 
presented  to  the  committee  ;  but  I  fear  the  hour  is  too 
late,  and  I  am  too  much  exhausted  to  enter  as  fully  into  it 
as  it  deserves.  The  topic  aUuded  to  is — the  effects  of  this 
war ;  which  has  been  pronounced  so  ruinous  by  our  opponents. 
On  examination,  strong  reasons  will  be  found  for  the  opinion, 
that  it  is  daily  producing  the  most  solid  and  lasting  advan- 
tages to  the  community. 

It  has  already  liberated  us  from  that  dread  of  British 
power,  which  was  almost  universal  before  the  declaration  of 
war.  If  we  have  done  little  against  our.  enemy,  he  has  done 
still  less  against  us.  What  the  state  of  public  feeling  was  on 
this  point,  may  be,  in  some  degree,  inferred  from  the  debates 
in  this  House  before  the  declaration  of  war.  I  cannot  but 
express  my  surprise  at  an  assertion  of  a  gentlemen  from 
Virginia  (Mr.  Sheffey),  that  all  his  fears  and  predictions  had 
been  realized.  Has  he  already  forgotten  the  speeches  in 


102 

which  he  and  his  friends  portrayed  the  effects  of  the  war  in 
glowing  and  terrific  colors  ?  Kebellion,  civil  war,  prostrated 
liberty,  and  conflagrated  towns,  all  mingled  in  one  horrid 
group.  (Mr.  Sheffey  here  explained.)  It  seems  that  the 
gentleman  has  availed  himself  of  the  usual  privilege  of  po- 
litical prophets.  If  events  turn  out  any  thing  like  their 
predictions,  they  are  claimed  as  fulfilments  ;  but  if  entirely 
the  opposite,  they  are  explained  away. 

There  is  no  one  who  hears  me,  but  will  acknowledge, 
that  the  dread  of  England  was  great  and  general  Her 
power  over  our  hopes  and  our  fears  was  too  great  for  our 
complete  independence,  and  but  illy  comported  with  the 
steady  pursuit  of  our  own  peculiar  interests.  From  this  state 
the  war  has  liberated  us,  I  hope  for  ever. 

We  have  also  acquired,  in  some  degree,  and  are  progres- 
sively acquiring,  what  to  me  appears  indispensable  in  the 
present  state  of  man  and  the  world — military  skill  and  means, 
combined  with  the  tone  of  thinking  and  feeling  necessary  to 
their  use.  Occasional  privations  are  always  to  be  encoun- 
tered in  the  defence  of  national  rights,  and  the  habits  neces- 
sary to  meet  them  with  fortitude  are  of  the  greatest  impor- 
tance. I  know  how  much  this  country  is  attached  to  peace 
and  quiet  industry.  I  know  how  delightful  repose  and  safety 
are  to  our  nature.  But  universal  experience,  and  the  history 
of  those  nations  with  whom  we  are  necessarily  connected, 
forbid  me  to  indulge  in  the  pleasing  dream,  that  any  degree 
of  prudence  or  justice  on  our  part  can  render  such  a  state 
perpetual.  The  ambition  of  a  single  nation  can  destroy 
the  peace  of  the  world.  We  must,  then,  submit  to  the  in- 
scrutable law  of  our  nature,  which  forbids  the  hope,  in  this 
world,  of  uninterrupted  peace  and  enjoyment.  We  must, 
also,  as  prudent  men,  rejoice  in  the  acquisition  of  those  na- 
tional qualities  necessary  to  meet  the  vicissitudes  of  war  when 
unavoidable.  Connected  with  this  subject,  I  rejoice  to  be- 
hold the  amazing  growth  of  our  manufacturing  interest.  I 


SPEECHES.  103 

regret  that  I  cannot  present  my  thoughts  fully  on  this  im- 
portant subject.  It  will  more  than  indemnify  the  country 
for  all  of  its  losses.  I  believe  no  country,  however  valuable 
its  staples,  can  reach  a  state  of  great  and  permanent  wealth, 
without  the  aid  of  manufactures.  Reason  and  experience, 
I  conceive,  support  this  position.  Our  internal  strength  and 
means  of  defence  are,  by  them,  greatly  increased.  War, 
when  forced  on  us  hereafter,  will  find  us  with  ample  means  ; 
and  will  not  be  productive  of  that  distressing  vicissitude 
which  follows  it,  where  the  industry  of  the  country  is  founded 
on  commerce,  and  agriculture  dependent  on  foreign  markets. 
Even  our  commerce,  in  the  end,  will  partake  of  the  benefits. 
Kich  means  of  exchange  with  all  the  world  will  be  furnished 
to  it ;  and  the  country  will  be  in  a  much  better  condition  to 
extend  to  it  efiicient  protection.  I  have  merely  suggested 
the  topics  for  argument  on  this  important  branch  of  our 
political  economy ;  and  conclude  by  expressing  the  hope, 
that,  on  some  future  occasion,  they  will  receive  a  suitable 
discussion. 


SPEECH 

On  the  repeal  of  the  Embargo  and  Non-Importation 
Act,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
April  6th,  1814. 

[NOTE. — April  4th,  1814.  The  unfinished  business  being  postpon- 
ed with  that  view,  Mr.  Calhoun,  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means,  reported  a  Bill,  "  To  repeal  an  Act  laying  an  em- 
bargo on  all  ships  and  vessels  in  the  ports  and  harbors  of  the  United 
States,  and  so  much  of  any  act  or  acts,  as  prohibits  the  importation  of 
goods,  wares  and  merchandise,  of  the  growth,  produce  and  manufac- 
ture of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  &c.,"  which  having  been  twice  read, 


104  SPEECHES. 

was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Mr.  Wright  of  Mary- 
land objected  to  this  reference,  because,  the  Bill  coupled  two  objects, 
which  ought  to  be  kept  separate ;  and  moved  a  recommittal  to  the 
same  committee,  with  instructions  to  report  two  separate  bills.  This 
motion  was  overruled  by  the  Speaker,  and  the  question,  on  referring 
the  Bill  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  was  carried  by  a  large  major- 
ity. On  Wednesday,  April  6th,  the  House  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  this  Bill,  when  Mr.  Calhoun  made  the  following 
speech  in  support  of  it.  There  were  numerous  amendments  offered 
which  were  negatived,  and  the  Bill  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading  and 
passed  the  next  day,  by  a  vote  of  115  to  3*7.1 

IN  order,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  the 
measure  embraced  by  the  bill,  it  will  be  necessary  to  go  back 
to  the  nature  and  character  of  the  war  in  which  this  coun- 
try is  engaged.  It  is,  as  has  been  emphatically  and  correctly 
stated,  a  war  for  Free  Trade  and  Sailors'  Rights  ;  and  such 
must  be  the  character  of  every  war  in  which  we  may  engage. 
We  are  so  far  removed  from  European  contests,  that  we  shall 
never  enter  into  the  straggles  for  continental  power  in  that 
quarter  of  the  world.  Not  that  we  should  be  indifferent 
spectators  of  the  events  in  Europe — because  the  changes 
there  may  have  a  considerable  bearing  on  the  affairs  and  in- 
terests of  this  country  ;  but  the  interest  we  feel  in  them  is 
not  of  such  a  character,  as  to  make  us  a  primary  party  in 
any  of  their  contests.  But  one  circumstance  always  accom- 
panying European  straggles,  will,  more  or  less,  involve  the 
rights  of  this  country.  Of  such  a  character  is  the  British 
commercial  or  maritime  policy,  which,  in  its  effects,  tends  to 
destroy  the  free  trade  of  this  country,  and  also  to  infringe 
the  rights  of  our  seamen.  In  this  point  of  view,  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  great  importance  that  we  should  duly  reflect  on  the 
character  of  the  present  contest,  to  decide  what  part  this 
country  ought  to  act,  and  what  principles  should  now  govern 
our  conduct. 

The  policy  of  Britain,  which  is  to  contract  and  limit  neu- 


SPEECHES.  105 

tral  rights,  and  which  if  not  resisted  must  annihilate  them, 
will  always  have  a  strong  bearing  on  the  United  States.  But 
that  policy  will  not  stop  here  ;  it  will  affect  the  interests  of 
every  country  in  Europe,  and  place  them,  more  or  less,  on 
the  side  of  this  country  in  resistance  to  it.  It  then  becomes 
a  matter  of  policy  to  unite  those  countries,  interested  in  the 
cause  of  free  trade,  in  the  struggle  which  we  are  obliged  to 
make  against  the  usurpations  of  the  enemy.  In  this  point 
of  view,  the  most  liberal  and  generous  policy  ought  to  be 
pursued  by  us  as  to  the  other  countries  of  Europe,  and  par- 
ticularly to  the  great  Northern  powers  of  Sweden  and  Kus- 
sia.  But  it  may  be  said,  our  past  measures  contradict  this 
leading  principle  of  policy.  I  think  not.  The  restrictive 
system  sprang  from  an  unusual  state  of  things  :  it  was  a  pa- 
cific policy  arising  from  the  extraordinary  state  of  the  world, 
at  the  time  we  embarked  in  it ;  and,  of  course,  was  a  tempo- 
rary, rather  than,  a  permanent  policy.  On  looking  back  to 
its  origin,  gentlemen  will  find  it  to  be  such  as  I  have  stated. 
It  originated  at  a  moment  when  every  power  on  the  conti- 
nent of  Europe  was  arrayed  against  Great  Britain,  and  not  one 
of  them  was  then  interested  in  the  support  or  defence  of  neu- 
tral rights.  There  was  scarcely  a  port  in  Europe,  which,  at  the 
commencement  of  our  restrictive  system,  was  not  occluded  to 
British  commerce.  In  this  state  of  things  the  United  States,  in 
order  to  avoid  war  (not  having  taken  the  resolution,  at  that 
time,  to  declare  war),  resorted  to  the  restrictive  system — resort- 
ed to  it  because  the  extraordinary  state  of  the  European  world 
presented  a  prospect,  that  the  strong  pressure  of  this  system  on 
Great  Britain  might  save  the  country  from  the  contest  into 
which  we  have  since  been  reluctantly  drawn.  Such  was  the 
character  of  the  Embargo  measure,  originating  from  the  posture 
of  the  world  at  that  day,  when  it  was  resorted  to  without  the 
prospect  of  its  producing  an  impression  on  neutral  powers — for 
there  were  then  no  neutrals.  Gentlemen  may  say,  that  in  this 
view  of  the  restrictive  system,  it  ought  to  have  terminated 


106  SPEECHES. 

at  the  commencement  of  the  war.  To  be  candid,  that  was 
my  opinion  ;  and  wnen  a  motion  was  made  by  a  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Richardson)  to  that  effect,  I  advo- 
cated it  on  the  ground,  that  the  restrictive  policy  was  opposed 
to  the  war.  That  motion  was  not  successful ;  but  it  was  re- 
jected by  a  majority  of  one  vote  only, — so  many  members  of 
the  republican  party  agreeing  with  me  in  that  opinion,  as 
almost  to  have  carried  the  question  at  that  time.  But  why 
was  the  system  not  then  terminated  ?  The  reasons  will  be 
obvious  to  all  who  revert  to  the  circumstances  of  the  period. 
The  state  of  the  world  which  originally  induced  us  to  adopt 
the  system — which  gave  great  energy  to  it,  remained  un- 
changed. All  Europe  was  still  occluded  to  British  commerce  ; 
the  war  between  Eussia  and  France  had  not  then  broken  out — 
Russia  had  not  then  opened  her  ports  to  British  commerce. 

This,  then,  is  the  governing  motive  which  prevented  the 
repeal  of  that  system.  Had  the  state  of  the  world  been 
then  what  it  now  is  ;  had  all  the  European  world,  France 
excepted,  been  open  to  British  commerce  ;  had  there  existed 
neutral  nations  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  of  power  and 
influence ; — had  this  state  of  things  then  existed,  there  is 
the  strongest  reason  to  believe,  from  the  small  majority 
against  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
to  which  I  have  alluded,  that  the  restrictive  system  would 
have  been  terminated  by  the  war.  As  to  my  own  views  of 
the  system,  I  thought  it  ought  to  have  terminated  in  war 
earlier  than  it  did.  In  this  respect  I  disagreed  with  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side  of  the  House,  with  whom  I  then  voted. 
They  wished  for  neither  war  nor  restriction. 

But  let  us  now  attend  to  the  present  state  of  the  world. 
What  is  the  condition  of  England  ?  As  between  us  and 
Great  Britain,  there  are  many  nations  of  great  power 
now  in  a  neutral  condition  :  Russia,  Sweden,  all  Germany, 
Denmark,  Prussia,  Spain  (for  even  she  may  be  considered 
neutral),  and  perhaps  Holland.  Under  the  entire  change  of 


SPEECHES.  10Y 

the  circumstances  of  Europe,  ought  not  the  restrictive  system 
to  terminate  ?  Indubitably — indubitably  ; — because  all  the 
reasons  which  justified  and  recommended  its  continuance  have 
now  ceased.  It  was  originally  resorted  to  as  a  pacific  measure. 
War  having  been  declared,  as  a  war  measure  it  was  continued 
— as  a  measure  of  force,  because  all  Europe  was  shut  against 
our  enemy.  All  Europe  being  now  open  to  her,  that  reason 
has  ceased.  Suppose  we  persist  in  the  measure.  Does  any 
one  believe  that  England  will  feel  its  effects  as  she  did  when 
the  continent  was  shut  ?  Certainly  not.  But  in  addition 
to  this  consideration,  the  fact  is,  that  we  are  now  contending 
for  free  trade,  and  ought  to  propitiate,  as  much  as  possible, 
every  nation  which  has  the  same  interest  as  ourselved  in  its 
maintenance  :  in  one  word,  it  is  our  interest  to  attach  the 
friendship  of  Russia,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Holland,  and  of  all 
nations  who  have  a  deep  interest  in  free  trade,  to  our  cause. 
I  have  a  strong  impression,  that  if  we  open  our  ports  to 
them,  and  the  maritime  usurpations  of  Britain  continue, 
they  will,  in  time,  make  common  cause  with  the  United 
States  ;  that,  in  time,  their  weight  will  be  thrown  into  the 
scale  with  us  to  counteract  her  policy.  It  will  not  be  deco- 
rous or  wise  for  the  United  States,  standing  up  for  the  freedom 
of  trade,  to  pursue  a  course  of  policy  calculated  to  irri- 
tate those  nations  with  whom  they  may  have  common  cause. 
What  said  the  Emperor  of  Russia  in  relation  to  our  war  with 
Britain,  when  apprised  of  it  ?  He  expressed  his  solicitude 
for  the  trade  with  America,  and  regretted  that  our  difference 
with  Great  Britain  would  interrupt  it.  This  sentiment  he 
expressed  at  the  moment  when  France  and  her  allies  were 
marching  against  him,  and  he  did  not  know  how  soon  they 
would  plant  their  standard  in  his  capital.  That  sentiment 
must  have  still  greater  influence  with  him  now,  when  his 
enemy  is  repelled.  The  same  feeling  which  governed  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  hi  this  respect,  must,  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  govern  every  nation  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 


108  SPEECHES. 

whose  interests  are  the  same.  In  the  proposition  which  has 
been  made  to  France  on  the  part  of  the  allies,  a  solicitude 
has  been  evinced  on  this  subject,  which,  if  this  country  shows 
a  disposition  to  extend  the  benefits  of  its  commerce  to  the 
European  continent,  must  have  weight  in  the  British  cabi- 
net. We  ought  never  to  forget  the  reasons  which  forced  us 
into  war.  Anxious  to  maintain  our  neutral  position,  and 
enjoy  the  benefits  of  neutral  trade,  we  for  years  closed  our 
eyes  to  the  aggressions  on  the  part  of  the  enemy  ;  suiferance 
on  our  part  provoked  only  further  injury,  which  forced  us  to 
arms  in  defence  of  neutral  rights  and  free  trade.  Under 
this  view  of  the  subject,  I  hope  this  committee  will  duly  ap- 
preciate the  necessity  of  conciliating  those  nations,  whose 
interests  are  now  the  same  as  ours  ;  with  whom  we  have  now 
some  trade,  which,  in  future,  may  be  expected  to  be  greatly 
extended. 

But  it  may  be  said,  England  will  not  permit  this  trade. 
To  what  a  situation  will  she  then  be  reduced  !  to  an  alter- 
native the  most  awkward  and  perplexing  :  she  must  either 
keep  up  her  present  mere  cruising  or  paper  blockade  of  our 
sea-coast  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  those  neutrals,  or  modify 
her  system  in  favor  of  all  neutrals.  Will  not  a  persistence 
in  her  present  unlawful  system  of  blockade  and  capture  at 
sea  of  neutral  vessels  destined  for  the  United  States,  irritate 
and  vex  those  nations,  and  detach  them  from  her  cause  ? 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  she  modifies  her  system  of  blockade  in 
their  favor,  we  may  carry  on  a  lucrative  trade  to  the  conti- 
nent of  Europe,  not  beneficial  to  England,  but  very  much  so 
to  the  United  States.  The  very  option  which  will  thus  be 
presented,  will  embarrass  the  British  cabinet,  and  have  a 
stronger  tendency  to  produce  peace,  than  ten  years'  continu- 
ance of  the  present  system,  when  the  prospect  of  its  produ- 
cing any  pressure  has  become  so  very  faint.  I  ask  gentlemen 
on  the  same  side  of  the  House  with  myself,  whether,  if  the 
restrictive  system  were  now  off,  there  would  be  ten  votes 


SPEECHES.  109 

in  the  House  in  favor  of  putting  it  on  ?  I  contend  there 
would  not.  If  it  were  to  expire  on  the  10th  of  the  present 
month,  would  there  be  ten  votes  in  favor  of  its  renewal  ?  I 
believe  not.  If  the  House  would  in  neither  case  embrace  it 
under  present  circumstances,  there  is  the  strongest  reason  to 
presume  that,  in  its  judgment,  the  restrictive  system  is  not 
now  operative  and  wise.  What,  then,  is  the  objection  to  its 
repeal  ?  A  regard  to  consistency.  I  know  regard  ought 
always  to  be  had  to  this  trait,  so  valuable  in  governments 
and  individuals  ;  but  it  is  not  the  duty  of  men  to  regulate 
their  conduct  without  any  regard  to  events.  True  wisdom 
consists  in  properly  adapting  our  conduct  to  circumstances. 
Two  things  may  change  our  conduct  on  any  particular  point :  a 
change  of  our  own  opinion,  or  of  exterior  circumstances,  which 
entirely  change  the  reason  of  our  former  conduct.  Men  can- 
not always  go  straight  forward,  but  must  regard  the  obstacles 
which  impede  their  course.  Inconsistency  consists  in  a 
change  of  conduct,  when  there  is  no  change  of  circumstances 
which  justify  it.  Those  who  adapt  their  conduct  to  a  change 
of  circumstances,  act,  not  inconsistently,  but  otherwise.  They 
would  be  inconsistent,  if  they  persisted  in  a  course  of  mea- 
sures after  the  reasons  which  called  for  them  had  so  changed, 
as  to  require  a  course  directly  the  reverse.  I  respect  the 
firmness  of  many  friends  around  me,  because  it  indicates 
their  determination  to  persevere  in  any  system,  and  adhere 
to  any  measure,  which  they  believe  the  interest  of  their 
country  requires.  But,  according  to  the  view  which  I  have 
taken,  I  do  not  consider  such  a  persistence  in  the  restrictive 
system  as  the  dictate  either  of  wisdom  or  of  sound  policy. 

There  are  many  other  observations  which  I  might  make 
on  this  subject,  which  I  shall,  at  present,  forbear  to  urge. 

As  to  the  manufacturing  interest,  in  regard  to  which 
some  fears  have  been  expressed,  the  resolution  voted  by  the 
House  yesterday  is  a  strong  pledge,  that  it  will  not  suffer  the 
manufacturers  to  be  unprotected,  in  case  of  a  repeal  of  the 


110  SPEECHES. 

restrictive  system.  I  hope  that  at  all  times,  and  under 
every  policy,  they  will  be  protected  with  due  care.  All  far- 
ther remarks  I  reserve,  until  I  shall  hear  the  objections  to 
the  bill 


SPEECH 

On  the  Resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means,  to  increase  the  Direct  Tax,  deliv- 
ered in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Oct.  25th, 
1814. 

[NOTE. — After  the  capture  of  Washington  by  the  British  army 
under  the  command  of  Gen.  Boss,  the  President,  by  Proclamation, 
called  an  extra  session  of  Congress,  which  met  on  the  19th  of  Sept., 
1814.  The  finances  of  the  Government,  as  well  as  the  currency  of 
the  country,  were  in  a  deplorable  state ;  and  the  attention  of  Congress 
was  immediately  directed  to  these  subjects.  The  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  recommended,  among  other  measures,  an  addition  of  50 
per  cent,  on  the  Direct  Taxes ;  which  was  subsequently,  in  conformity 
with  the  views  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  increased  to  one 
hundred  per  cent.  He  also  recommended  the  issue  of  treasury  notes, 
and  the  establishment  of  a  National  Bank,  with  a  capital  of  fifty 
millions,  as  necessary  to  the  support  of  the  public  credit. 

The  first  resolution  of  the  committee,  recommending  the  addition 
of  100  per  cent,  on  the  Direct  Taxes,  was  discussed  on  the  24th  and 
25th  of  October,  by  Messrs.  Rhea,  Fisk,  and  Calhoun  in  favor,  and 
by  Messrs.  Webster  and  Shipherd  in  opposition  ;  and  decided  in  the 
affirmative,  by  a  vote  of  89  to  38.  The  following  is  a  sketch  of  Mr. 
Calhoun's  remarks.] 

MB.  CALHOUN  said,  he  did  not  rise  to  consider  whether 
the  war  was  originally  just  and  necessary,  or  whether  the  ad- 
ministration had  abandoned  the  original  objects  of  the  con- 


SPEECHES.  Ill 

test ;  much  less,  whether  the  opposition,  according  to  the  very 
modest  declaration  of  the  member  from  New  Hampshire 
(Mr.  Webster),  possessed  all  the  talent  and  confidence  of  the 
country.  His  object  was  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House 
to  the  necessity  of  prompt  and  vigorous  measures  for  the 
prosecution  of  the  war.  If  ever  a  body  of  men,  said  he, 
held  the  destinies  of  a  country  in  their  hands,  it  was  that 
which  he  was  now  addressing.  You  have,  for  an  enemy,  a 
Power  the  most  implacable  and  formidable  ;  who,  now  freed 
from  any  other  contest,  will,  the  very  next  campaign,  direct 
the  whole  of  his  force  against  you.  Besides  his  deep-rooted 
enmity  towards  this  country,  which  will  urge  him  to  exer- 
tion, he  is  aware  of  the  necessity,  on  his  part,  to  bring  the 
contest  to  a  speedy  termination.  He  dreads  its  continuance ; 
for  he  well  knows  that,  should  it  be  maintained  by  us  with 
vigor  for  only  a  few  years,  there  will  be  other  parties  to  the 
struggle,  which  may  again  involve  him  in  a  war  with  all 
Europe.  He,  then,  will  put  forth,  from  spite  and  policy,  the 
whole  of  his  strength  the  next  summer  to  crush  us,  if  pos- 
sible, by  one  mighty  effort.  To  meet  this  state  of  things, 
the  whole  of  our  resources  will  have  to  be  called  into  action  ; 
and,  what  is  of  equal  importance,  with  such  promptitude 
as  to  be  ready  to  act  as  soon  as  the  season  will  admit.  What, 
then,  are  the  duties  which  devolve  on  this  House,  and  which 
must  be  performed,  in  order  that  we  may  be  in  a  state  of 
preparation  to  meet  and  maintain  the  struggle  ?  This  is 
the  question  which  he  proposed  to  consider, — not  indeed  in 
detail,  but  generally  ;  in  -order  that  we  may  be  aware  of  the 
urgent  necessity  for  dispatch. 

First,  then,  it  will  be  absolutely  necessary  to  pass  these 
tax  resolutions,  or  some  others  of  equal  vigor,  into  laws.  Our 
finances,  it  is  acknowledged,  are  much  deranged  ;  and  it  is 
also  admitted,  on  all  sides,  that  they  can  only  be  restored  by 
a  vigorous  system  of  taxation.  Has  any  member  estimated 
how  much  time  this  will  consume  ?  It  is  now  the  25th  of 


112  SPEECHES. 

October,  and  we  have  not  passed  even  the  resolutions.  At 
the  same  rate  of  proceeding,  to  settle  all  the  complex  details 
of  the  bills,  and  pass  them  into  laws,  will  require  months. 
In  the  next  place,  it  will  be  necessary  (he  presumed  no  mem- 
ber could  doubt  it)  to  take  the  state  of  the  circulating  me- 
dium into  consideration,  and  to  devise  some  measure  to  ren- 
der it  more  safe  and  better  adapted  to  the  purposes  of  finance. 
The  single  fact,  that  we  have  no  proper  medium  commensu- 
rate in  its  circulation  with  the  Union  ; — that  it  is  all  local — 
is  calculated  to  produce  much  embarrassment  in  the  opera- 
tions of  the  treasury.  But,  Sir,  after  we  have  passed  the  taxes 
and  established  an  adequate  circulating  medium,  which  must 
of  necessity,  with  the  closest  attention,  consume  much  time, 
much  still  will  remain  to  be  done.  The  army,  to  which  the 
President  had  so  strongly  called  our  attention,  has  not  yet 
claimed  a  moment  of  our  tune.  He  would  not  pretend  to 
anticipate  the  plan  which  the  Military  Committee  would 
doubtless  submit  to  the  House  ;  but  he  would  state  what  ap- 
peared to  him  indispensable  to  give  to  our  arms  the  greatest 
effect  with  the  least  expenditure.  He  did  not  wish  to  be 
understood  as  the  advocate  of  parsimony,  but  of  economy, 
combined  with  effective  action. 

The  enemy,  at  present,  presses  the  war  both  on  our  sea- 
board and  interior  frontier.  The  nature  of  the  contest  on 
either  will,  if  properly  considered,  indicate  the  mode  in  which  it 
ought  to  be  met.  On  the  seaboard  it  must  be  strictly  de- 
fensive. The  enemy  can  make  no  permanent  conquest  of 
any  importance  there  ;  but  he  hopes,  by  alarming  and  har- 
assing the  country,  and  putting  us  to  an  enormous  expense 
in  defending  it,  to  break  the  spirit  of  the  people,  and  bring 
us  to  his  own  terms.  The  only  remedy  in  our  hands,  with- 
out a  marching  force,  is  to  fortify  as  strongly  as  possible  the 
cities  and  exposed  points,  and  to  garrison  them  with  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  experienced  regular  troops.  In  case  of  an 
attack  they  must  be  aided  by  the  militia  of  the  cities  and 


SPEECHES.  113 

adjacent  country,  called  out  on  the  occasion  en  masse;  which 
can  be  done  without  much  vexation  or  expense.  By  having 
respectable  garrisons  of  regular  troops,  thus  aided  on  emer- 
gencies, and  supported  by  strong  works,  we  will  afford  more 
security,  and  save  millions  of  expense.  The  present  militia 
force,  he  supposed,  in  actual  service,  could  not  be  much  short 
of  100,000.  Less  than  half  that  number  of  regulars  could  be 
made  abundantly  adequate  to  the  defence  of  our  seaboard. 

On  the  Canada  frontier  the  war  must  assume  an  oppo- 
site character.  If  we  wish  to  act  with  effect,  it  must  there 
be  wholly  offensive.  He  had  earnestly  hoped  that  the 
miserably  stale  and  absurd  objections  against  offensive  opera- 
tions in  Canada  had  ceased,  till  he  heard,  yesterday,  the 
member  from  New  Hampshire  (Mr.  Webster).  It  was  so  ob- 
viously the  cheapest  and  most  effectual  mode  of  operating  on 
our  enemy,  that  thinking  men,  he  believed,  with  few  excep- 
tions, of  all  parties,  had  agreed  in  its  expediency.  For,  sup- 
pose we  should  have,  at  the  opening  of  the  next  campaign,  a 
sufficient  force  on  the  Canada  frontier  for  its  reduction, 
what  would  be  the  result  ?  Our  enemy  must  either  call  off 
the  whole  of  his  force  to  defend  himself  in  that  quarter,  or 
he  must  permit  it  to  fall  into  our  possession.  Either  event 
would  be  desirable.  If  he  should  adopt  the  former,  as  in  all 
probability  he  would  be  compelled  to  do,  our  seaboard  would 
be  freed  from  danger  and  alarm,  and  we  would  have  the  fur- 
ther advantage  of  meeting  him  on  equal  terms.  He  could 
no  longer  avail  himself  of  his  maritime  superiority.  If,  how- 
ever, he  should  not  strengthen  himself  in  Canada,  but  con- 
tinue the  war  on  the  coast,  it  would  be  still  more  to  oui 
advantage.  The  reduction  of  his  possessions,  besides  shed- 
ding a  glory  on  our  arms  and  producing,  both  here  and  in 
England,  the  happiest  effects  in  our  favor — would  enable  us 
to  maintain  the  struggle  with  half  the  expense  in  men  and 
money.  After  so  desirable  an  event,  our  efforts  might  be 
almost  exclusively  directed  to  the  defence  of  the  seaboard, 

VOL.  II. — 8 


114  SPEECHES. 

and  the  war  would  assume  a  new  aspect  highly  favorable  to 
this  country.  To  secure  so  desirable  a  state  of  things,  a 
regular  force  of,  at  least,  50,000  men  ought  to  be  ready 
to  act  against  Canada  by  the  first  of  May  or  June,  at 
furthest.  If  they  could  be  immediately  raised  and  marched 
to  their  proper  depots  for  training,  they  could,  in  a  few 
months, -be  well  trained  for  service.  He  was  well  assured 
that  the  brilliant  battles  of  Bridgewater  and  Chippewa  were 
won  by  men  three-fourths  of  whom  had  not  been  in  the 
ranks  more  than  four  months.  With  skilful  officers,  and 
with  the  aptitude  of  the  Americans  to  acquire  the  military 
art,  the  finest  army  in  a  few  months  might  be  formed.  He 
said,  he  could  not  refrain  from  congratulating  this  House 
and  the  country  on  the  acquisition  we  had  made,  in  so  short  a 
tune,  of  military  skill.  It  was  wonderful,  almost  incredible, 
that,  in  a  year  or  two,  with  very  little  opportunity,  such 
generals  should  be  formed  as  led,  during  the  last  summer,  our 
armies  to  victory.  No  country,  under  all  the  circumstances, 
ever  in  so  short  a  tune,  developed  so  much  military  talent. 
Put  under  their  command,  without  delay,  a  sufficient  force, 
well  appointed,  and  you  will  find  yourself  in  the  road  to 
honor  and  secure  peace.  But  can  this  be  done  by  idle  de- 
bate ? — by  discussing  the  origin  of  the  war,  and  the  relative 
talent  and  virtue  of  the  two  great  parties  in  this  country  ? 
Now  is  our  tune,  not  for  debate,  but  action.  Much  is  to  be 
done  ;  we  have  not  a  moment  to  lose.  Time  is  to  us  every 
thing — men,  money,  honor,  glory,  and  peace.  Should  we 
consume  it  in  debate,  and  let  the  moments  for  prepara- 
tion glide  away,  our  affairs  must  be  irretrievably  ruined. 
Compare  what  remains  to  be  done  with  the  time  for 
action,  and  it  is  certain  that,  to  act  promptly  is  as  im- 
portant as  to  act  at  all.  Under  these  impressions,  he  hoped 
that  the  House  would  pass,  this  day,  on  all  the  resolutions  ; 
that  they  would  be  referred  back  to  the  committee,  to  report 
bills  immediately ;  and  that  whatever  was  needful  to  our 


SPEECHES.  115 

early  and  complete  preparation,  would  be  promptly  dis- 
patched. The  enemy  is  already  arrived,  and,  as  soon  as 
permitted  by  the  season,  will  strike  with  deadly  intent. 
Let  us  be  ready  to  receive  and  return  the  blow  with  re- 
doubled force.  We  are  placed  in  circumstances  the  most 
urgent  and  imperious.  Our  supposed  weakness  has  tempted 
him  to  make  his  extraordinary  demands.  Who,  that  bears 
in  his  bosom  the  heart  of  an  American,  can  think  of  them 
without  the  most  just  indignation  ?  Surrender  the  lakes  to 
his  control ;  renounce  the  fisheries — that  nursery  for  sea- 
men ;  cede  a  part  of  Maine,  and  all  beyond  the  Greenville 
line  ;  and  recognize  the  Indians  as  their  allies,  and  under 
their  protection  !  Such  is  his  language.  He  relies  not  so 
much  in  his  own  strength,  as  our  divisions  and  consequent 
weakness.  Let  it  be  our  most  serious  business,  by  vigor  and 
promptitude,  to  baffle  and  destroy  his  vain  hopes.  If  we 
fail,  it  will  not  be  for  the  want  of  means,  but  because  we 
have  not  used  them.  We  have  generals  and  troops  that  have 
proved  themselves  an  overmatch  for  the  choicest  of  the  ene- 
my's battalions,  commanded  by  his  most  boasted  officers. 
To  this  evidence  of  skill  and  courage,  superadd  preparations 
on  our  part  equal  to  our  resources.  By  this  means,  you  will 
make  him  sensible  of  his  presumption,  and  compel  him  to 
listen  to  terms  of  peace,  honorable  to  both  nations.  He  has 
it  in  his  power,  at  all  times,  to  make  such  a  peace.  Every 
member  who  hears  me  knows  this  to  be  the  fact,  not- 
withstanding the  unjust  and  unfounded  insinuations  of 
the  member  from  New  Hampshire  (Mr.  Webster)  to  the 
contrary. 

He  observed,  again,  that  England  dreaded  a  continuance 
of  the  contest.  The  affairs  of  Europe  are  far  from  being 
settled.  Her  relation,  in  a  commercial  point  of  view,  is  cal- 
culated to  raise  up  powerful  enemies  on  the  continent. 
Should  she  be  foiled  and  disgraced  here,  which  she  must  be, 
if  we  but  do  our  duty,  the  opportunity,  so  favorable,  to  hum- 


> 
116  SPEECHES. 

ble  her,  will  be  seized.  Of  these  facts  she  is  sensible,  and 
our  very  preparation  for  a  vigorous  war  will  make  her  dread 
the  contest.  But  suppose,  instead  of  vigorous  and  prompt 
preparation,  we  consume  our  time  in  debate  here,  and  permit 
our  affairs  to  go  on  in  the  consequent  slow  and  feeble  way — 
where  is  the  man  so  blind  as  to  believe  that  England  will 
limit  her  views  by  her  present  demands,  extravagant  as  they 
are  ?  We  are  already  told,  that  she  will  proportion  her 
future  demands  to  the  relative  situation  of  the  two  countries. 
She  neither  expected  nor  desired  peace  on  the  terms  which 
were  offered.  Her  bosom  is  repossessed  with  the  ambition 
and  projects  that  inspired  her  in  the  year  seventy-six.  It  is 
the  war  of  the  Eevolution  revived  ;  we  are  again  struggling 
for  our  liberty  and  independence.  The  enemy  stands  ready, 
and  eagerly  watches  to  seize  any  opportunity  which  our  fee- 
bleness or  division  may  present,  to  realize  his  gigantic 
schemes  of  conquest.  In  this  struggle  for  existence,  he  must, 
he  said,  entreat  the  members  of  the  opposition — though  they 
can  reconcile  it  to  their  consciences  to  stand  with  folded 
arms,  and  coldly  look  on — not  to  impede,  by  idle  and  frivo- 
lous debate,  the  efforts  of  those  who  are  ready,  by  every  sac- 
rifice, to  maintain  the  independence  of  the  country.  The 
subject  is  weighty  ;  he  felt  himself  pressed  on  all  sides  by 
the  most  interesting  topics  ;  but  he  would  abstain  from  fur- 
ther remarks,  lest  he  who  deprecated  the  consumption  of  the 
tune  of  the  House  in  long  debate,  should  set  an  example  of 
it  in  himself.  The  time  is  precious,  and  he  felt  that  he 
owed  an  apology  for  having  consumed  so  much  of  it  as  he 
had  done. 


SPEECHES.  117 


SPEECH 

On  the  Military  Peace  Establishment,  delivered  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  February  27th, 
1815. 

[NOTE. — February  22d,  1815.  Mr.  Troup,  from  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs,  reported  a  Bill  to  fix  the  Military  Peace  Establish- 
ment. The  Bill  provided  that  it  should  not  exceed  Ten  Thousand 
men;  which  was  read  and  referred  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
When  called  up  in  committee,  Mr.  Desha  moved  to  substitute  Six 
Thousand  for  Ten  Thousand,  which  gave  rise  to  considerable  debate, 
and  the  amendment  was  carried  69  to  50  ;  and  the  Bill,  after  some 
further  amendments,  was  reported  to  the  House,  when  on  the  question 
of  concurrence  in  the  amendments,  a  debate  arose,  in  which  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  took  part,  against  the  amendment.  The  following  is  only  a 
sketch  of  his  remarks.] 

MR.  CALHOUN  said,  That  on  the  question  of  fixing  the 
Military  Peace  Establishment,  it  appeared  to  him  the  House 
was  acting  rather  in  the  dark,  having  before  them  neither 
the  estimates,  nor  the  facts  on  which  they  could  be  founded. 
In  determining  the  amount  of  the  Military  Establishment, 
he  said,  the  House  ought  to  take  into  view  three  objects,  and 
to  graduate  the  force  to  be  retained  accordingly,  viz.  :  a  pro- 
per maintenance  and  garrison  of  our  military  posts  and  for- 
tresses ;  an  establishment  large  enough  to  keep  alive  military 
science  and  serve  as  a  seminary  for  that  purpose  ;  and  the 
adaptation  of  our  military  force  to  the  policy  of  the  enemy 
in  regard  to  this  country.  As  regarded  these  objects,  it 
appeared  to  him,  that  the  House  was  not  in  possession  of 
information  to  enable  it  to  act  understandingly.  What 
force  would  be  necessary  to  guard  our  seaports,  to  protect 
our  northwestern  and  western  frontier  from  Indian  hosti- 


118  SPEECHES. 

lity  ?  Of  this  there  was  no  estimate,  but  every  thing  was  left 
to  conjecture.  As  to  the  second  point,  practical  military 
men  ought  to  be  consulted,  whether  it  would  be  proper  to 
keep  up  a  military  force  to  maintain  military  science. 

The  next  question,  said  Mr.  C.,  was  more  important. 
Have  we  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  force  and  policy  of  the 
enemy,  to  enable  us  to  decide  on  the  reduction  of  our  milita- 
ry establishment  ?  He  contended  we  had  not.  What  would  be 
the  feelings  of  England  on  receiving  intelligence  of  the  late 
events,  he  did  not  know.  Whether  the  soreness  of  her  recent 
defeat  would  produce  a  disposition  to  remain  at  peace  or  to  re- 
taliate, no  gentleman  could  say.  If  there  were  any  doubt  on 
this  subject,  we  ought  to  act  with  caution  in  reducing  our 
military  establishment.  What  course  the  enemy  will  pursue 
we  cannot  determine  :  whether  he  will  keep  up  a  small  peace 
establishment  or  a  large  military  force,  we  do  not  know.  It 
ought  to  be  recollected,  that  he  has  abundance  of  military 
means,  and  that  living  is  as  cheap  in  Canada  as  in  England. 
If  the  enemy  should  keep  up,  on  our  borders,  a  force  of 
30,000  or  40,000  men,  instead  of  reducing  it  to  four  or  five 
thousand,  would  it  be  wise  in  us  wholly  to  disarm?  It 
would  not.  If  a  large  force  should  be  retained  in  service  in 
our  vicinity,  it  would  be  highly  impolitic  for  us  to  reduce 
ours  as  low  as  was  proposed.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia 
(Mr.  Jackson)  had  on  a  former  day  remarked,  that  our  situa- 
tion was  peculiarly  felicitous,  in  having  no  enemy  imme- 
diately in  our  neighborhood.  But  it  ought  to  be  borne  in 
mind,  that  the  most  powerful  nation  in  Europe  possessed 
provinces  adjoining  our  territory,  into  which  she  could 
readily  pour  an  armed  force.  He  hoped  that  she  never 
would,  but  she  might  do  so.  Suppose  with  forty  thousand 
men,  she  should  choose,  without  notice,  to  make  a  hostile 
movement  against  our  territory  ?  Every  strong  position  on 
the  Niagara  frontier  would  fall  at  once  into  her  hands,  and 


SPEECHES.  119 

the  very  expense  we  wish  to  avoid,  must  be  quadrupled  to 
enable  us  to  regain  them. 

Having  neither  estimates  nor  facts,  as  he  had  before 
remarked,  the  House  ought  to  act  cautiously.  It  is  easier  to 
keep  soldiers,  than  to  get  them  ; — to  retain  officers  of  skill  and 
renown  in  your  service,  than  to  make  them.  Let  us  wait 
a  while  before  we  reduce  our  army  to  a  mere  peace  estab- 
lishment. 

[Several  gentlemen  then  addressed  the  House  on  this  question,  pro 
and  con.,  when  Mr.  Calhoun  again  rose  and  said  : — ] 

He  was  more  and  more  convinced  of  the  inexpediency  of 
breaking  up,  at  once,  our  whole  military  establishment. 
Had  they  before  them,  he  asked,  or  could  they  have,  at  this 
session,  the  necessary  estimates  whereby  to  fix  the  peace  esta- 
blishment. '  If  they  had,  there  would  probably  be  little  dif- 
ference of  opinion  on  the  subject ;  but  they  had  not.  Gentle- 
men had  said  that  to  retain  so  great  a  force,  would  imply 
a  suspicion  of  the  good  faith  of  Great  Britain,  in  regard  to 
the  peace.  His  reply  to  that  argument  was,  that  if  the 
largest  number,  now  proposed,  be  agreed  to,  we  shall  reduce 
our  army  to  one-sixth  of  the  amount  of  our  war  establish- 
ment ;  that  is  to  say,  from  sixty  to  ten  thousand  men,  and 
ultimately  perhaps  from  ten  thousand  to  six.  He  rose  now, 
however,  principally  to  reply  to  the  argument  that  our  ratifi- 
cation of  the  treaty  amounted  to  an  abandonment  to  Great 
Britain  of  the  right  of  impressment,  &c. — to  an  abandon- 
ment of  free  trade  and  sailors'  rights. 

In  the  first  place,  he  denied  the  position  that  this 
country  had  ever  set  up  a  claim  to  the  universality  of  the 
flag.  We  had  always  been  ready  to  make  any  arrange- 
ment, by  which  our  own  seamen  might  be  protected. 
Although  the  Government,  perhaps,  ought  to  have  done  so, 
it  never  made  it  a  point  that  the  flag  should  protect  every 
thing  under  it.  It  had  been  said,  however,  that  unless  the 


120  SPEECHES. 

flag  protected  all  sailing  under  it,  it  would  be  difficult  to  rem- 
edy the  abuse  of  the  right  of  search  for  persons.  We  offered 
the  rale,  that  the  flag  should  protect  the  seamen,  as  one  sub- 
ject to  modification.  This  Government  had  always  been 
willing  to  make  such  reciprocal  regulations  as  should,  in  this 
respect,  secure  to  each  nation  its  rights.  The  celebrated 
Seamen's  Bill,  as  it  was  called,  was  the  result  of  a  dispo- 
sition of  this  sort.  We  have  denied  the  right  of  Great 
Britain  to  take  any  other  than  her  own  seamen,  and  have  we 
made  any  stipulation,  express  or  implied,  by  which  we  have 
yielded  the  rights  of  our  citizens  to  exemption  from  impress- 
ment by  her  authority  ?  On  the  contrary,  he  maintained 
that  that  right  was  substantially  and  for  ever  fixed.  We 
have  exhibited,  said  Mr.  C.,  during  this  war,  a  power  and  an 
energy  of  character,  which  will  prevent  any  nation  from  at- 
tempting, hereafter,  to  take  our,  or  any  other  seamen  from 
our  decks.  Mr.  C.  added,  he  had  no  doubt,  but  that  Great 
Britain  would  be  willing,  in  order  to  guard  against  any 
future  collision  on  this  subject,  to  enter  into  reciprocal 
arrangements,  which  shall  preclude,  hereafter,  any  necessity 
or  pretence  for  searching  our  merchant  vessels  for  her  sea- 
men. There  is  no  abandonment  on  our  part,  by  the  treaty, 
of  any  right.  He  had  seen  some  assertions  to  the  contrary 
in  newspapers  ;  but  he  had  never  expected  to  hear  it  gravely 
said  on  this  floor,  that  it  would  be  something  like  a  violation 
of  the  treaty,  if  we  should  hereafter  resist  the  practice  of 
impressing  our  seamen.  The  war,  said  Mr.  C.,  had  effected 
all  its  great  objects.  The  British  claim  of  impressment, 
which  we  resisted,  ended  with  the  European  war.  It  was 
a  claim  resulting  from  a  state  of  war  ;  that  state  ceasing, 
the  operation  of  the  claim  ceased  with  it,  and  there  was  no 
necessity  for  a  treaty  stipulation  against  a  claim  which  was 
extinct.  If  war  should  again  break  out  in  Europe,  and 
that  claim  be  revived  (which,  he  believed,  would  not  be  the 
case),  we  shall  be  in  a  better  condition  than  ever  to  assert 


SPEECHES.  121 

the  rights  of  our  citizens  ;  though  he  believed  we  had  made 
such  an  impression  on  the  British  nation,  that  it  would 
never  feel  the  same  disposition  hereafter,  which  it  had  here- 
tofore evinced,  to  encroach  on  our  rights.  They  were  now 
better  secured  than  by  paper  or  parchment  stipulations. 
They  are  secured,  said  Mr.  C.,  by  the  vigor  and  energy  of 
the  American  people,  who  will  again  be  ready  to  draw  the 
sword,  if  Britain  again  ventures  to  encroach  on  them. 

[After  some  remarks  by  Mr.  Hanson,  Mr.  Calhoun  continued : — ] 

Nothing  was  more  easy,  than,  by  taking  detached  parts 
of  papers  and  omitting  to  take  circumstances  into  view,  en- 
tirely to  misrepresent  any  question.  If  the  gentleman  last 
up,  who  had  quoted  a  part  of  the  instructions  to  our  minis- 
ters, had  read  a  little  more  of  that  report,  he  would  have  seen 
the  gross  error  of  the  construction  he  has  put  upon  it — he 
would  have  found,  that  our  ministers  were  fully  authorized 
to  have  made  a  treaty — containing  a  stipulation  respecting 
impressment — to  terminate  at  the  conclusion  of  a  general 
peace  ;  the  object  being,  to  guard  against  the  possible  con- 
tinuance of  the  practice  of  impressment  during  the  war  in 
Europe.  He  would  have  seen  further,  that,  when  peace  was 
concluded,  the  necessity  for  such  a  stipulation  ceased.  What, 
said  Mr.  0.,  was  the  injury  we  complained  of,  and  what  was 
the  claim  of  the  enemy?  The  claim  was,  that  he  had  a  right, 
in  time  of  war,  to  enter  on  board  American  (neutral)  vessels, 
and  to  judge  who  were  American  and  who  were  British 
seamen,  and  to  take  therefrom  whomsoever  he  thought  proper. 
What  was  the  ground  of  complaint  on  our  part  ?  That  the 
enemy,  in  the  exercise  of  this  pretended  right,  frequently 
took  American  seamen,  to  the  detriment  of  the  commerce 
and  the  deprivation  of  the  personal  liberty -of  American  citi- 
zens. At  the  time  these  instructions  were  sent  to  our 
ministers,  there  was  a  war  raging  in  Europe,  which  no  gen- 
tleman there  pretended  to  think  would  come  to  a  speedy  ter- 


122  SPEECHES. 

ruination.  It  appeared  to  be  a  contest,  which  would  endure 
for  a  series  of  years,  having  already,  with  little  intermission, 
lasted  twenty.  Those  statements  and  those  instructions,  a 
part  of  which  had  been  quoted,  were  then  given  respecting 
the  question  of  impressment,  as  springing  out  of  a  state  of 
war ;  and  it  was  at  that  time,  that  the  report  was  made  to 
this  House,  proclaiming  the  necessity  of  unceasing  resistance 
to  so  grievous  an  injury.  This  state  of  war,  Mr.  C.  continued, 
having  ceased,  and,  with  it,  the  evil  of  impressment,  there 
was  no  necessity  to  continue  the  contest  of  this  ground.  And 
had  we  done  so,  what  would  have  been  the  language  of  the 
gentleman  and  his  friends  ?  That  statesmen  go  to  war  for 
practical  injuries — that,  as  Great  Britain  never  impresses  in 
time  of  peace  in  Europe,  to  continue  the  war  on  this  account, 
would  be  to  fight  against  a  mere  speculative  claim  on  the 
part  of  the  British  Government.  To  have  adopted  this 
course  would  have  been  exceedingly  unwise ;  and  would  have 
met  with  the  severest  reprobation  of  the  gentlemen  on  that 
side  of  the  House.  Every  one  who  heard  him  knew,  said 
Mr.  C.,  that  such  would  have  been  the  clamor  rung  from 
one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other.  Any  one  who  adverted 
to  the  very  document,  of  which  the  gentleman  had  read  a 
part  (viewed  in  connection  with  then  existing  circumstances), 
would  find  his  whole  argument  answered  by  it  as  completely 
and  demonstrably  as  any  proposition  in  Euclid.  The  idea 
that  we  had  relinquished  our  rights  in  this  respect,  because 
the  matter  was  not  recited  in  the  treaty,  was,  in  his  opinion, 
preposterous.  It  could  not  be  maintained  by  the  semblance 
of  an  argument.  They  are  not  at  all  affected  by  it.  But 
they  are  strongly  fortified  by  the  events  of  the  present  war, 
and  the  spirit  with  which  it  has  been  waged — a  spirit  which 
will  probably  make  foreign  powers  more  careful  of  invading 
them.  The  benefit  of  the  claim  to  Great  Britain  can  never 
compensate  for  the  injury  she  might  sustain,  by  provoking  us 
to  war,  in  resistance  to  it,  and  in  defence  of  the  personal 


SPEECHES.  123 

liberty  of  our  citizens.  In  the  late  contest,  this  country  has 
acquired  a  character  which  will  secure  respect  to  its  rights. 
If  ever  an  American  citizen  should  be  forcibly  impressed, 
said  Mr.  C.,  he  would  be  ready  again  to  draw  the  sword  in 
his  defence  :  and  no  government  could  prosper,  that  would 
with  impunity  permit  so  flagrant  an  outrage  on  the  rights 
of  its  citizens.  Government  itself  is  only  protection ;  and 
they  cannot  be  separated.  I  feel  pleasure  and  pride,  said 
Mr.  C.,  in  being  able  to  say,  that  I  am  of  a  party  which 
drew  the  sword  on  this  question,  and  succeeded  in  the  con- 
test ;  for,  to  all  practical  purposes,  we  have  achieved  com- 
plete success. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Bill  to  regulate  the  commerce  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  according  to  the 
Convention  of  the  3d  of  July,  1815;  delivered 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  9th, 
1816. 

[NOTE. — The  Message  of  the  President,  of  the  26tli  of  December, 

1815,  communicating  to  Congress  the  Commercial  Convention  with 
Great  Britain,  and  recommending  such  legislative  provisions  as  might 
be  deemed  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect,  having  been  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Kelations,  Mr.  Forsyth,  its  chairman,  on 
December  29th,  reported  a  Bill  for  the  purpose,  which  was,  on  the 
same  day,  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  where  it  was  dis- 
cussed -with  much  animation  and  ability  until  the  9th  of  January, 

1816.  Involving,  as  in  the  case  of  Jay's  Treaty,  questions  of  moment, 
as  to  the  constitutional  distribution  of  powers,  between  the  two  Houses, 
the  debate  was  resumed  in  the  House — all  the  leading  men  of  both 
parties  participating  in  it.      On  no  question,  perhaps,  during  the 
period,  was  there  an  equal  display  of  eloquence  and  ability. 


124  SPEECHES. 

On  the  10th  January,  1816,  the  Senate,  in  anticipation  of  the 
action  of  the  House,  passed  a  Bill  "  enacting  and  declaring  so  much 
of  any  act  or  acts  as  is  contrary  to  the  provisions  "  of  the  Treaty,  "  to 
be  of  no  force  or  effect."  This  was  received  by  the  House  on  the 
same  day ;  when  it  was  denounced  as  an  "  attempt  to  evade  the  ques- 
tion before  the  House  " — and  subsequently  laid  on  the  table.  On  the 
13th,  the  House  passed  its  Bill  by  a  vote  of  86  to  71,  and  sent  it  to 
the  Senate,  where,  on  the  19th  it  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  21  to  10. 
The  House,  February  6th,  amended  the  Senate's  Bill  by  striking  out  all 
after  the  enacting  clause,  and  inserting  its  own  Bill ;  on  the  ground  that 
it  "interfered  with  the  judicial  power"  and,  at  the  same  time,  "de- 
prived the  House  of  its  just  powers  in  respect  to  provisions  affecting  the 
public  revenues."  Thus  amended  the  Bill  was  passed  and  sent  to  the 
Senate  ;  where,  on  February  12,  it  was,  after  full  debate,  again  rejected. 
The  two  Houses  being  thus  at  issue,  a  Committee  of  Conference  was 
subsequently  agreed  to ;  and,  by  compromise,  the  Senate's  Bill,  with 
some  modifications,  was  finally  (February  24)  adopted.  Yeas,  100 ; 
Nays,  15.] 

MR.  SPEAKER  : — The  votes  on  this  bill  have  been  order- 
ed to  be  recorded  ;  and  the  House  will  see,  in  my  peculiar 
situation,  a  sufficient  apology  for  offering  my  reasons  for  the 
rejection  of  the  bill.  I  had  no  disposition  to  speak  on  this 
bill ;  as  I  was  content  to  let  it  take  that  course,  which,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  majority,  it  ought,  till  the  members  were 
called  on  by  the  order  of  the  House  to  record  their  votes. 

The  question  presented  for  consideration  is  perfectly  sim- 
ple, and  easily  understood  : — Is  this  bill  necessary  to  give  valid- 
ity to  the  late  treaty  with  Great  Britain  ?  It  appears  to  me 
that  this  question  is  susceptible  of  a  decision,  without  con- 
sidering whether  a  treaty  can  in  any  case  set  aside  a  law  ; 
or,  to  be  more  particular,  whether  the  treaty  which  this  bill 
proposes  to  carry  into  effect,  does  repeal  the  discriminating 
duties.  The  House  will  remember,  that  a  law  was  passed 
at  the  close  of  last  session,  conditionally  repealing  those 
duties.  That  act  proposed  to  repeal  them  in  relation  to  any 
nation,  which  would  on  its  part  agree  to  repeal  similar  duties 


SPEECHES.  125 

as  to  this  country.  On  the  contingency  happening,  the  law 
became  positive.  It  has  happened,  and  it  has  been  an- 
nounced to  the  country,  that  England  has  agreed  to  repeal. 
The  President,  in  proclaiming  the  treaty,  has  notified  the 
fact  to  the  House  and  to  the  country.  Why,  then,  propose 
to  do  that  by  this  bill,  which  has  already  been  done  by  a  pre- 
vious act  ?  I  know  it  has  been  said  in  conversation,  that 
the  provisions  of  the  act  are  not  as  broad  as  the  treaty.  It 
does  not  strike  me  so.  They  appear  to  me  to  be  commen- 
surate. I  also  infer  from  the  appearance  of  this  House,  that 
it  is  not  very  deeply  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  this  bill. 
I  have  never,  on  any  important  occasion,  seen  it  so  indiffer- 
ent. Whence  does  this  arise  ?  From  its  want  of  import- 
ance ?  If,  indeed,  the  existence  of  the  treaty  depended  on 
the  passage  of  this  bill,  nothing  scarcely  could  be  more  in- 
teresting. It  would  be  calculated  to  excite  strong  feelings. 
We  all  know  how  the  country  was  agitated  when  Jay's 
Treaty  was  before  the  House.  The  question  then  was  on  an 
appropriation  to  carry  it  into  effect ;  a  power  acknowledged 
by  all  to  belong  to  the  House  ;  and  on  the  exercise  of  which, 
the  existence  of  the  treaty  was  felt  to  depend.  The  feelings 
manifested  corresponded  with  this  conviction.  Not  so  on 
this  occasion.  Further,  the  treaty  has  already  assumed  the 
form  of  law.  It  is  so  proclaimed  to  the  community ;  the 
words  of  the  proclamation  are  not  material ;  it  speaks  of 
itself ;  and  if  it  means  any  thing,  it  announces  the  treaty  as 
a  rule  of  public  conduct,  as  a  law  exacting  the  obedience  of 
the  people.  Were  I  of  the  opposite  side,  if  I,  indeed,  be- 
lieved this  treaty  to  be  a  dead  letter  till  it  received  the 
sanction  of  Congress,  I  would  lay  the  bill  on  the  table  and 
move  an  inquiry  into  the  fact,  why  the  treaty  has  been  pro- 
claimed as  a  law  before  it  received  the  proper  sanction.  It 
is  true,  the  Executive  has  transmitted  a  copy  of  the  treaty 
to  the  House  ;  but  has  he  sent  the  negotiation  ?  Has  he 
given  any  light  to  show  why  it  should  receive  the  sanction  of 


126 

this  body  ?  Do  gentlemen  mean  to  say  that  information  is 
not  needed  ;  that  though  we  have  the  right  to  pass  laws,  to 
give  validity  to  treaties,  yet  we  are  bound  by  a  moral  obli- 
gation to  pass  such  laws  ?  To  talk  of  the  right  of  this  House 
to  sanction  treaties,  and  at  the  same  time  to  assert  that  it  is 
under  a  moral  obligation  not  to  withhold  that  sanction,  is  a 
solecism.  No  sound  mind  that  understands  the  terms,  can 
possibly  assent  to  it.  I  would  caution  the  House,  while  it  is 
extending  its  powers  to  cases  which,  I  believe,  do  not  belong 
to  it,  to  take  care  lest  it  lose  its  substantial  and  undoubted 
power.  I  would  put  it  on  its  guard  against  the  dangerous 
doctrine,  that  it  can  in  any  case  become  a  mere  registering 
body.  Another  fact  in  regard  to  this  treaty.  It  does  not 
stipulate  that  a  law  shall  pass  to  repeal  the  duties  proposed 
to  be  repealed  by  this  bill,  which  would  be  its  proper  form, 
if  in  the  opinion  of  the  negotiators  a  law  was  necessary  ;  but 
it  stipulates  in  positive  terms  for  their  repeal  without  con- 
sulting or  regarding  us. 

I  here  conclude  this  part  of  the  discussion,  by  stating  that 
it  appears  to  me  from  the  whole  complexion  of  the  case, 
that  the  bill  before  the  House  is  a  mere  form,  and  cannot 
be  supposed  to  be  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  treaty. 
It  will  be  proper,  however,  to  reply  to  the  arguments  which 
have  been  urged  on  the  general  nature  of  the  treaty-making 
power,  and  as  it  is  a  subject  of  great  importance,  I  solicit 
the  attentive  hearing  of  the  House. 

It  is  not  denied,  I  believe,  that  the  President,  with  the 
concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Senate,  has  a  right  to  make 
commercial  treaties ;  it  is  not  asserted  that  this  treaty  is 
couched  in  such  general  terms  as  to  require  a  law  to  carry 
the  details  into  execution.  Why,  then,  is  this  bill  neces- 
sary ?  Because,  say  gentlemen,  the  treaty  of  itself,  without 
the  aid  of  this  bill,  cannot  exempt  British  tonnage,  and  goods 
imported  in  their  bottoms,  from  the  operation  of  the  law  lay- 
ing additional  duties  on  foreign  tonnage  and  goods  imported 


SPEECHES.  127 

in  foreign  vessels  ;  or,  giving  the  question  a  more  general 
form,  because  a  treaty  cannot  annul  a  law. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Barbour),  who  argued 
this  point  very  distinctly,  though  not  satisfactorily,  took  as 
his  general  position,  that  to  repeal  a  law  is  a  legislative  act, 
and  can  only  be  done  by  law  /that  in  the  distribution  of  the 
legislative  and  treaty-making  power,  the  right  to  repeal  a  law 
fell  exclusively  under  the  former^  How  does  this  comport 
with  the  admission  immediately  made  by  him,  that  the  trea- 
ty of  peace  repealed  the  act  declaring  war  ?  If  he  admits 
the  fact  in  a  single  case,  what  becomes  of  his  exclusive  legis- 
lative right  ?  He  indeed  felt  that  this  rule  failed  him,  and 
in  explanation  assumed  a  position  entirely  new  ;  for  he  ad- 
mitted, that  when  the  treaty  did  that  which  was  not  author- 
ized to  be  done  by  law,  it  did  not  require  the  sanction  of 
Congress,  and  might  in  its  operation  repeal  a  law  inconsis- 
tent with  it.  He  said,  Congress  is  not  authorized  to  make 
peace  ;  and  for  this  reason,  a  treaty  of  peace  repeals  the  act 
declaring  war.  In  this  position,  I  understood  his  colleague 
substantially  to  concur.  I  hope  to  make  it  appear,  that  in  tak- 
ing this  ground,  they  have  both  yielded  the  point  in  discussion. 
I  shall  establish,  I  trust,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  House,  that 
tha^treaty-making  power,  when  it  is  legitimately  exercised,  al- 
ways does  that  which  cannot  be  done  by  law^j and,  that  the  rea- 
sons advanced  to  prove  that  the  treaty  of  peace  repealed  the  act 
declaring  war,  so  far  from  being  peculiar  to  that  case,  apply 
to  all  treaties.  They  do  not  form  an  exception,  but  in  fact  con- 
stitute the  rule.  Why  then,  I  ask,  cannot  Congress  make 
peace  ?  They  have  the  power  to  declare  war.  All  acknowledge 
this  power.  Peace  and  war  are  opposites.  They  are  the 
positive  and  negative  terms  of  the  same  proposition  ;  and  what 
rule  of  construction  more  clear  than  that  when  a  power  is 
given  to  do  an  act,  the  power  is  also  given  to  repeal  it  ?  By 
what  right  do  you  repeal  taxes,  reduce  your  army,  lay  up  your 
navy,  or  repeal  any  law,  but  by  the  force  of  this  plain  rule  of 


128  SPEECHES. 

construction  ?  Why  cannot  Congress  then  repeal  the  act  de- 
claring war  ?  I  acknowledge,  with  the  gentleman,  that  they 
cannot,  consistently  with  reason.  The  solution  of  this  ques- 
tion explains  the  whole  difficulty.  The  reason  is  plain  ;  one 
power  may  make  war ;  it  requires  two  to  make  peace.  It  is 
a  state  of  mutual  amity  succeeding  one  of  mutual  hos- 
tility ;  —  a  state  that  cannot  be  created,  but  with  the  con- 
sent of  both  parties.  It  requires  a  contract  or  a  treaty  be- 
tween the  nations  at  war.  Is  this  peculiar  to  a  treaty  of 
peace  ?  No,  it  is  common  to  all  treaties.  It  arises  out  of 
their  nature,  and  not  from  any  accidental  circumstance,  at- 
taching to  a  particular  class.  It  is  no  more  nor  less  than 
that  Congress  cannot  make  a  contract  with  a  foreign  nation. 
Let  us  apply  it  to  a  treaty  of  commerce,  to  this  very  case. 
Can  Congress  do  what  this  treaty  has  done  ?  It  has  repeal- 
ed the  discriminating  duties  between  this  country  and  Eng- 
land. Either  country  could  by  law  repeal  its  own.  But,  by 
law,  they  could  go  no  farther  ;  and  for  the  reason,  that  peace 
cannot  be  made  by  law.// Whenever,  then  an  ordinary  sub- 
ject of  legislation  can  only  be  regulated  by  contract,  it  passes 
from  the  sphere  of  the  ordinary  power  of  making  laws,  and 
attaches  itself  to  that  of  making  treaties,  wherever  it  is  lodg- 
ed. y^.11  acknowledge  the  truth  of  this  conclusion,  where 
the  subject,  on  which  the  treaty  operates,  is  not  expressly 
given  to  Congress  :  but  in  other  cases,  they  consider  the  two 
powers  as  concurrent ;  and  conclude  from  the  nature  of  such 
powers,  that  such  treaties  must  be  confirmed  by  law.  Will 
they  acknowledge  the  opposite — that  laws  on  such  subjects 
must  be  confirmed  by  treaties  ?  And  if,  as  they  state,  a  law 
can  repeal  a  treaty  when  concurrent,  why  not  a  treaty  a  law  ? 
Into  such  absurdities  do  false  doctrines  lead.  The  truth  is, 
the  legislative  and  treaty-making  powers  are  never,  in  the 
strict  sense,  concurrent.  They  both  may  have  the  same  sub- 
ject, as  in  this  case,  viz.,  commerce ;  but  they  discharge 
functions  entirely  different  in  their  nature  in  relation  to  it. 


SPEECHES.  129 

When  we  speak  of  concurrent  powers,  we  mean  when 
both  can  do  the  same  thing  ;  but  I  contend  that  when  the 
two  powers  under  discussion  are  confined  to  their  proper 
sphere,  not  only  the  law  cannot  do  what  could  be  done  by 
treaty,  but  the  reverse  is  true  ;  that  is,  they  never  are  nor 
can  be  concurrent  powers.  It  is  only  when  we  reason  on 
this  subject  that  we  mistake  ;  in  all  other  cases  the  common 
sense  of  the  House  and  country  decide  correctly.  It  is  pro- 
posed to  establish  some  regulation  of  commerce ; — we  imme- 
diately inquire,  does  it  depend  on  our  will  ?  can  we  make 
the  desired  regulation  without  the  concurrence  of  any  foreign 
power  ?  If  so,  it  belongs  to  Congress,  and  any  one  would 
feel  it  to  be  absurd  to  attempt  to  effect  it  by  treaty.  On  the 
contrary,  does  it  require  the  consent  of  a  foreign  power  ?  is 
it  proposed  to  grant  a  favor  for  a  favor — to  repeal  discriminat- 
ing duties  on  both  sides  ?  It  is  equally  felt  to  belong  to  the 
treaty-making  power  ;  and  he  would  be  thought  insane  who 
should  propose  to  abolish  the  discriminating  duties  in  any 
case,  by  an  act  of  the  American  Congress.  It  is  calculated, 
I  feel,  almost  to  insult  the  good  sense  of  the  House,  to  dwell 
on  a  point  evidently  so  clear.  What  then  do  I  infer  from 
what  has  been  advanced  ?  That,  according  to  the  argu- 
ment of  gentlemen,  treaties,  producing  a  state  of  things  in- 
consistent with  the  provisions  of  an  existing  law,  annul  such 
provisions.  But  as  I  do  not  agree  with  them  in  the  view 
which  they  have  taken,  I  will  here  present  my  own  for  con- 
sideration. 

Why,  then,  has  a  treaty  the  force  which  I  attribute  to 
it  ?  Because  it  is  an  act,  in  its  own  nature,  paramount  to 
laws  made  by  the  common  legislative  powers  of  the  country. 
It  is  in  fact  a  law,  and  something  more  ;  a  law  established 
by  contract  between  independent  nations.  By  analogy  to  pri- 
vate life,  law  has  the  same  relations  to  treaty,  as  the  resolution 
taken  by  an  individual  to  his  contract.  An  individual  may 
make  the  most  deliberate  promise  ;  he  may  swear  it  in  the 
VOL.  n. — 9 


130  SPEECHES. 

most  solemn  form,  that  he  will  not  sell  his  house,  or  any 
other  property  he  may  have  ;  yet,  if  he  should  afterward  sell, 
the  sale  would  be  valid  in  law  ;  he  would  not  be  admitted  in 
a  court  of  justice  to  plead  his  oath  against  his  contract.  Take 
the  case  of  a  government  in  its  most  simple  form,  where  it 
is  purely  despotic  ;  that  is,  where  all  power  is  lodged  in  the 
hands  of  a  single  individual.  Would  not  his  treaties  repeal 
inconsistent  edicts  ?  Let  us  now  ascend  from  the  instances 
cited  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  two  powers,  to  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  the  paramount  character  of  a  treaty  rests.  A 
treaty  always  affects  the  interests  of  two  ;  a  law  only  that  of 
a  single  nation.  It  is  an  established  principle  of  politics  and 
morality,  that  the  interest  of  the  many  is  paramount  to  that 
of  the  few.  In  fact,  it  is  a  principle  so  radical,  that  without 
it  no  system  of  morality,  no  rational  scheme  of  government, 
could  exist.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  contracts,  or  that 
treaties  [which  are  only  the  contracts  of  independent  na- 
tions], or,  to  express  both  in  two  words,  that  plighted  faith 
has  in  all  ages  and  nations  been  considered  so  solemn.  But 
it  is  said,  in  opposition  to  this  position,  that  a  subsequent 
law  can  repeal  a  treaty ;  and  to  this  proposition,  I  under- 
stand that  the  member  from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Gaston) 
assents.  Strictly  speaking,  I  deny  the  fact.  I  know  that  a 
law  may  assume  the  appearance  of  repealing  a  treaty ;  but, 
I  insist,  it  is  only  in  appearance,  and  that,  in  point  of  fact, 
it  is  not  a  repeal.  Whenever  a  law  is  proposed,  declaring  a 
treaty  void,  I  consider  that  the  House  acts  not  as  a  legisla- 
tive body,  but  judicially.  To  illustrate  my  idea :  If  the 
House  is  a  moral  body, — that  is,  if  it  is  governed  by  reason 
and  virtue,  which  must  always  be  presumed, — the  only  ques- 
tion that  ever  can  occupy  its  attention,  whenever  a  treaty  is 
to  be  declared  void,  is  whether,  under  all  the  circumstan- 
ces of  the  case,  the  treaty  is  not  already  destroyed,  by  being 
violated  by  the  nation  with  whom  it  is  made,  or  by  the  ex- 
tetence  of  some  other  circumstance,  if  other  there  can  be. 


SPEECHES.  131 

The  House  determines  this  question :  Is  the  country  any 
longer  bound  by  the  treaty  ?  Has  it  not  ceased  to  exist  ? 
The  nation  passes  judgment  on  its  own  contract  ;  and  this 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  as  it  admits  no  supreme 
power  to  which  it  can  refer  for  decision.  If  any  other  con- 
sideration move  the  House  to  repeal  a  treaty,  it  can  be  con- 
sidered only  in  the  light  of  a  violation  of  a  contract  acknow- 
ledged to  be  binding  on  the  country.  A  nation  may,  it  is 
true,  violate  its  contract ;  it  may  even  do  this  under  the  form 
of  law ;  but  I  am  not  considering  what  may  be  done,  but 
what  may  be  rightfully  done.  It  is  not  a  question  of  power, 
but  of  right.  Why  are  not  these  positions,  in  themselves  so 
clear,  universally  assented  to  ?  Gentlemen  are  alarmed  at 
imaginary  consequences.  They  argue  not  as  if  seeking  for 
the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  but  as  if  deliberating  on 
the  subject  of  making  one  ;  not  as  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture, and  acting  under  a  constitution  already  established,  but 
as  those  of  a  convention  about  to  frame  one.  For  my  part, 
/I  have  always  regarded  the  constitution  as  a  work  of  great 
I  wisdom  ;  and,  being  the  instrument  under  which  we  exist  as 
a  body,  it  is  our  duty  to  bow  to  its  enactments,  whatever  they 
may  be,  with  submission.  We  ought  scarcely  to  indulge  a 
wish  that  its /provisions  should  be  different  from  what  they 
in  fact  are. /The  consequences,  however,  which  appear  to 
work  with  so 'much  terror  on  the  minds  of  the  gentlemen,  I 
consider  to  be  without  any  just  foundation.  The  treaty- 
making  power  has  many  and  powerful  limits  ;  and  it  will  be 
found,  when  I  come  to  discuss  what  those  limits  are,  that  it 
cannot  destroy  the  constitution,  or  our  personal  liberty,  or 
involve  us,  without  the  assent  of  this  House,  in  war,  or  grant 
away  our  money.  The  limits  I  propose  to  this  power  are 
not  the  same,  it  is  true  ;  but  they  appear  to  me  much  more 
rational  and  powerful  than  those  which  were  supposed  to  pre- 
sent effectual  guards  against  its  abuse.  Let  us  now  consider 
what  they  are 


132  SPEECHES. 

The  grant  of  the  power  to  make  treaties  is  couched  in 
the  most  general  terms.  The  words  of  the  constitution  are, 
that  the  President  shall  have  power,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make  treaties,  provided  two- 
thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concur.  In  a  subsequent  part 
of  the  constitution,  treaties  are  declared  to  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  Whatever  limits  are  imposed  by  these 
general  terms  ought  to  be  the  result  of  a  sound  construc- 
tion of  the  instrument.  There  are,  apparently,  but  two  re- 
strictions on  its  exercise  ;  the  one  derived  from  the  nature 
of  our  government,  and  the  other  from  that  of  the  power 
itself.  Most  certainly  all  grants  of  power  under  the  consti- 
tution must  be  construed  by  that  instrument  ;  for,  having 
their  existence  from  it,  they  must  of  necessity  assume  that 
form  which  the  constitution  has  imposed.  This  is  acknow- 
ledged to  be  true  of  the  legislative  power,  and  it  is  doubt- 
less equally  so  of  the  power  to  make  treaties.  The  limits  of 
the  former  are  exactly  marked  ;  it  was  necessary,  to  prevent 
collision  with  similar  co-existing  State  powers.  This  country 
is  divided  into  many  distinct  sovereignties.  Exact  enumera- 
tion on  this  head  is  necessary,  to  prevent  the  most  danger- 
ous consequences.  The  enumeration  of  legislative  powers  in 
the  constitution  has  relation,  then,  not  to  the  treaty-making 
power,  but  to  the  powers  of  the  States.  In  our  relation  to  the 
rest  of  the  world  the  case  is  reversed.  Here  the  States  disap- 
pear. Divided  within,  we  present  the  exterior  of  undivided 
sovereignty.  The  wisdom  of  the  constitution,  in  this,  appears 
conspicuous.  Where  enumeration  was  needed,  there  we  find 
the  powers  enumerated  and  exactly  defined  ;  where  not,  we 
do  not  find  what  would  be  only  vain  and  pernicious.  What- 
ever, then,  concerns  our  foreign  relations  ;  whatever  requires 
the  consent  of  another  nation,  belongs  to  the  treaty-making 
power,  and  can  only  be  regulated  by  it ;  and  it  is  competent  to 
regulate  all  such  subjects,  provided  [and  here  are  its  true 
limits]  such  regulations  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  consti- 


SPEECHES.  133 

tution.  If  so,  they  are  void.  No  treaty  can  alter  the  fabric 
of  our  government,  nor  can  it  do  that  which  the  constitution 
has  expressly  forbidden  to  be  done  ;  nor  can  it  do  that  differ- 
ently which  is  directed  to  be  done  in  a  given  mode, — all  other 
modes  being  prohibited.  For  instance,  the  constitution  says, 
no  money  "  shall  be  drawn  out  of  the  treasury  but  by  an  ap- 
propriation made  by  law."  Of  course  no  subsidy  can  be 
granted  without  an  act  of  law  ;  and  a  treaty  of  alliance 
could  not  involve  the  country  in  war  without  the  consent  of 
this  House.  With  this  limitation,  it  is  easy  to  explain  the 
case  put  by  my  colleague,  who  said,  that  according  to  one 
limitation,  a  treaty  might  have  prohibited  the  introduction 
of  a  certain  description  of  persons  before  the  year  1808,  not- 
withstanding the  clause  in  the  constitution  to  the  contrary. 
I  will  speak  plainly  on  this  point : — it  was  the  intention  of 
the  constitution  that  the  slave  trade  should  be  tolerated  till 
the  time  mentioned.  It  covers  me  with  confusion  to  name 
it  here  ;  I  feel  ashamed  of  such  a  tolerance,  and  take  a  large 
part  of  the  disgrace,  as  I  represent  a  part  of  the  Union  by 
whose  influence  it  might  be  supposed  to  have  been  intro- 
duced. Though  Congress  alone  is  prohibited,  by  the  words 
of  the  clause,  from  suppressing  that  odious  traffic,  yet  my  col- 
league will  admit  that  it  was  intended  to  be  a  general  pro- 
hibition on  the  Government  of  the  Union.  I  perceive  my 
colleague  indicates  his  dissent.  It  will  be  necessary  to  be 
more  explicit. 

[Here  Mr.  C.  read  that  part  of  the  constitution,  and  showed  that 
the  word  "  Congress  "  might  be  left  out,  in  conformity  with  other  parts 
of  the  constitution,  without  injury  to  the  sense  of  the  clause ;  and  he 
insisted  that  the  plain  meaning  of  the  parties  to  the  constitution  was, 
that  the  trade  should  continue  till  1808,  and  that  a  prohibition  by 
treaty  would  be  equally  against  the  spirit  of  the  instrument.] 

Besides  these  constitutional  limits,  the  treaty-making  pow- 
er, like  all  powers,  has  others  derived  from  its  nature  and  ob- 


134  SPEECHES. 

jects.  It  has  for  its  object,  contracts  with  foreign  nations  ;  as 
the  powers  of  Congress  have  for  their  object,  whatever  may  be 
done  in  relation  to  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  without  the 
consent  of  foreign  nations.  Each,  in  its  proper  sphere,  ope- 
rates with  general  influence  ;  but  when  they  become  erratic, 
then  they  are  portentous  and  dangerous.  A  treaty  never 
can  legitimately  do  that  which  can  be  done  by  law  ;  and  the 
converse  is  also  true.  Suppose  the  discriminating  duties  re- 
pealed on  both  sides  by  law, — still  what  is  effected  by  this 
treaty  would  not  even  then  be  done  ;  for  the  plighted  faith 
of  both  would  be  wanting.  Either  side  might  repeal  its  law 
without  breach  of  contract.  It  appears  to  me,  that  gentle- 
men are  too  much  influenced  on  this  subject  by  the  example  of 
Great  Britain.  Instead  of  looking  to  the  nature  of  our  own, 
they  have  been  swayed  in  their  opinions  by  the  practice  of 
that  government,  to  which  we  are  but  too  much  in  the  habit 
of  looking  for  precedents.  Much  anxiety  has  recently  been 
evinced,  to  be  independent  of  English  broadcloths  and  mus- 
lins ;  I  hope  it  indicates  the  approach  of  a  period  when  we 
shall  also  throw  off  the  thraldom  of  thought.  The  truth  is, 
but  little  analogy  exists  between  this  and  any  other  govern- 
ment. It  is  the  pride  of  ours,  to  be  founded  in  reason  and 
equity ;  all  others  have  originated,  more  or  less,  in  fraud, 
violence,  or  accident.  The  right  to  make  treaties,  in  Eng- 
land, can  only  be  determined  by  the  practice  of  the  govern- 
ment ;  as  she  has  no  written  constitution.  Her  practice 
may  be  wise  in  regard  to  her  government,  when  it  would  be 
very  imprudent  here.  Admitting  the  fact  to  be,  that 
the  king  refers  all  commercial  treaties  affecting  the  munici- 
pal regulations  of  the  country,  to  parliament,  for  its  sanction  ; 
the  argument  drawn  from  this  would  be  very  feeble  to  prove 
that  this,  also,  was  the  intention  of  our  constitution.  Strong 
differences  exist  between  the  forms  of  the  two  governments. 
The  king  is  hereditary  ; — he  alone,  without  the  participation  of 
either  house  of  parliament,  negotiates  and  makes  treaties. 


SPEECHES.  135 

England  has  no  constitution  emanating  from  the  people,  alike 
superior  to  the  legislature  and  the  king.  Not  so  here.  The 
President  is  elected  for  a  short  period ;  he  is  amenable  to 
the  public  opinion  ;  he  is  liable  to  be  impeached  for  corrup- 
tion ;  he  cannot  make  treaties  without  the  concurrence  of 
two-thirds  of  the  Senate — a  fact  very  material  to  be  remem- 
bered— which  body  is  in  like  manner  responsible  to  the 
people  at  periods  not  very  remote.  Above  all, — as  the  laws 
and  constitution  are  here  perfectly  distinct,  and  the  latter  is 
alike  superior  to  laws  and  treaties, — the  treaty-making  power 
cannot  change  the  form  of  government,  or  encroach  on  the 
liberties  of  the  country,  without  encroaching  on  that  instru- 
ment, which,  so  long  as  the  people  are  free,  will  be  watched 
with  vigilance. 


SPEECH 

On  the  motion  to  Repeal  the  Direct  Tax,  delivered 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  31st, 
1816. 

[NOTE. — January  9th,  1816.  The  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  to  whom  was  referred  that  portion  of  the  President's  Mes- 
sage relating  to  the  revenue,  reported,  among  others,  the  following 
resolution : 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  so  to  amend  an  act,  entitled,  'An 
act  to  provide  additional  revenues  for  defraying  the  expenses  of 
Government  and  maintaining  public  credit,  by  laying  a  direct  tax 
upon  the  United  States,  and  to  provide  for  assessing  and  collecting 
the  same,'  passed  on  the  9th  of  January,  1815,  as  to  reduce  the  tax 
to  be  levied  for  the  year  1816,  and  succeeding  years,  to  $3,000,000, 
with  a  similar  provision  in  regard  to  the  direct  tax  on  the  District  of 
Columbia.  This  resolution  being  called  up  in  Committee  of  the 


136  SPEECHES. 

Whole,  caused  much  debate.  Mr.  Clay  moved  to  amend  it,  so  as  to 
limit  its  operation  to  one  year,  with  a  view  to  place  it  under  the 
annual  control  of  the  House.  This  was  carried ;  and  then  Mr.  Har- 
den of  Kentucky  moved  to  amend  it,  by  declaring  it  expedient  to 
repeal  the  laws  laying  a  direct  tax,  altogether.  This  called  forth  dis- 
cussion for  several  days  successively,  in  which  many  of  the  most  promi- 
nent men  in  the  House  took  part.  The  motion  was  finally  negatived 
by  a  vote  of  81  to  73.] 

ME.  CHAIKMAN  : — There  are  in  the  affairs  of  nations, 
not  less  than  in  those  of  individuals,  moments,  on  the  proper 
use  of  which  depend  their  fame,  duration,  and  prosperity. 
Such  I  conceive  to  be  the  present  situation  of  this  country. 
Recently  emerged  from  a  war,  we  find  ourselves  in  possession 
of  a  physical  and  moral  power  of  great  magnitude  ;  and  im- 
pressed by  the  misfortunes  which  have  resulted  from  want  of 
forecast  heretofore,  we  are  disposed  to  apply  our  means  to 
purposes  most  valuable  to  the  country.  In  a  situation  of 
such  interest,  I  hope  we  shall  be  guided  by  the  dictates  of 
truth  and  wisdom  only  ;  that  we  shall  prefer  the  lasting  hap- 
piness of  our  country  to  present  ease  ;  its  security  to  its 
pleasure  ;  fair  honor  and  reputation  to  inglorious  and  in- 
active repose. 

We  are  now  called  on  to  determine  what  amount  of 
revenue  is  necessary  for  this  country  in  time  of  peace.  This 
involves  the  additional  question  :  what  are  the  measures 
which  the  true  interests  of  this  country  demand  ?  The 
principal  expense  of  our  Government  grows  out  of  measures 
necessary  for  its  defence  ;  and  in  order  to  decide  what  those 
measures  ought  to  be,  it  will  be  proper  to  inquire,  what 
ought  to  be  our  policy  towards  other  nations  ?  and  what  will 
probably  be  theirs  towards  us  ?  I  intentionally  leave  out 
of  consideration  the  financial  questions,  which  some  gentle- 
men have  examined  in  the  debate,  and  also  the  question  of 
retrenchments  ;  on  which  I  will  only  remark,  that  I  hope, 
whatsoever  of  economy  shall  enter  into  the  measures  of  Con- 


SPEECHES.  137 

gress,  they  will  at  least  be  divested  of  the  character  of  par- 
simony. 

Beginning  with  the  policy  of  the  country.  T'his  ought 
to  correspond  with  the  character  of  its  political  institutions. 
What,  then,  is  their  character  ?  They  are  founded  on 
reason  and  justice.  These  being  the  foundations  of  our 
Government,  its  policy  ought  to  comport  with  them.  It  is 
the  duty  of  all  nations,  especially  of  one  whose  institutions 
recognize  no  principle  of  force,  but  appeal  to  virtue  for 
their  strength,  to  act  with  justice  and  moderation — with 
moderation  approaching  to  forbearance.  In  all  possible  con- 
flicts with  foreign  powers,  our  Government  should  be  able  to 
make  it  manifest  to  the  world,  that  it  has  justice  on  its  side. 
We  should  always  forbear,  if  possible,  until  all  shall  be  satis- 
fied, that  when  we  take  up  arms,  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of 
conquest,  but  for  the  maintenance  of  our  essential  rights. 
Our  Government,  moreover,  is  also  founded  on  equality ;  it 
permits  none  to  exercise  violence  ;  it  permits  no  one  to  trample 
on  the  rights  of  his  fellow-citizens  with  impunity.  These 
maxims  we  should  also  carry  into  our  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations  ;  and  as  we  render  justice  to  all,  so  we  should 
be  prepared  to  exact  it  from  all. 

Our  policy  should  not  only  be  moderate  and  just,  but  as 
high-minded  as  it  is  moderate  and  just.  This  appears  to  me 
to  be,  for  our  country,  the  true  line  of  conduct.  In  the  policy 
of  nations  there  are  two  extremes  :  one,  in  which  justice  and 
moderation  may  sink  into  feebleness — another,  in  which  that 
lofty  spirit  which  ought  to  animate  all  nations,  particularly 
free  states,  may  mount  up  to  military  violence.  These  ex- 
tremes ought  to  be  equally  avoided ; — but,  of  the  two,  I 
consider  the  first  far  the  most  dangerous,  far  the  most  fatal. 
There  are  two  splendid  examples  of  nations  which  have  ulti- 
mately sunk  by  military  violence  ;  the  Romans  in  ancient 
tunes — the  French  in  modern.  But  how  numerous  are  the 
instances  of  nations  that  have  gradually  sunk  into  insignifi- 


138  SPEECHES. 

cance  through  imbecility  and  apathy.  They  have  not,  in- 
deed, struck  the  mind  so  forcibly  as  the  two  former  ;  because 
they  have  sunk  ingloriously,  without  any  thing  in  their  de- 
scent to  excite  either  admiration  or  respect.  I  consider  this 
extreme  weakness  not  only  the  most  dangerous  in  itself — 
but  one  to  which  the  people  of  this  country  are  peculiarly 
liable.  The  people,  indeed,  are  high-minded  ;  and,  there- 
fore, it  may  be  thought  that  my  fears  are  unfounded.  But 
they  are  blessed  with  much  happiness,  moral,  political,  and 
physical.  These  operate  on  the  dispositions  and  habits  of 
the  people  with  something  like  the  effects  attributed  to 
southern  climates  :  they  dispose  them  to  pleasure  and  to  inac- 
tivity, except  in  pursuit  of  wealth.  I  need  not  appeal  to 
the  past  history  of  the  country  ;  to  the  indisposition  of  our 
people  to  war,  from  the  commencement  of  the  Government ; 
arising  from  the  nature  of  our  habits,  and  the  disposition  to 
pursue  those  courses  which  contribute  to  swell  our  private  for- 
tunes. We  incline,  not  only  from  the  causes  already  men- 
tioned, but  from  the  nature  of  our  foreign  relations,  to  that 
feeble  policy,  which  I  consider  as  more  dangerous  than 
the  other  extreme.  We  have,  it  is  true,  dangers  to  appre- 
hend from  abroad — but  they  are  far  off,  at  the  distance  of 
three  thousand  miles  ;  which  prevents  that  continued  dread 
which  they  would  excite,  if  in  our  immediate  neighborhood. 
Besides,  we  can  have  no  foreign  war  which  we  should 
dread  or  fear  to  meet,  save  a  war  with  England  ;  for  a 
war  with  her  breaks  in  on  the  whole  industry  of  the 
country,  and  affects  all  its  private  pursuits.  On  this  ac- 
count WK  prefer  suffering  very  great  wrongs  from  her, 
rather  than  to  redress  them  by  arms.  The  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  asks,  if  the  country  did  forbear  till  it  felt  dis- 
grace, whose  fault  was  it  ?  Not,  he  said,  of  the  administra- 
tions of  Washington  or  Adams  ;  for  neither  of  them  had  left 
it  in  such  condition.  A  few  words  on  this  point.  The  fault 
can  be  ascribed  to  neither  of  our  several  administrations — 


SPEECHES.  139 

to  neither  of  the  two  great  parties.  It  arose  from  the  indis- 
position of  the  people  to  resort  to  arms,  for  the  reason  al- 
ready assigned.  It  arose,  also,  in  part,  from  two  incidental 
circumstances-1— the  want  of  preparation,  and  the  untried 
character  of  our  Government  in  war.  But  there  were  other 
circumstances,  too,  connected  with  the  party  to  which  the 
gentleman  belongs,  which,  doubtless,  contributed  to  prolong 
forbearance.  That  party  took  advantage  of  the  indisposition 
of  the  people  to  an  English  war,  and  preached  up  the  ad- 
vantages of  peace  when  it  had  become  ignominious,  and  un- 
til we  had  scarcely  the  ability  to  defend  ourselves.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Pennsylvania  further  said,  that,  if  peace  had 
not  been  made  when  it  was,  we  should  not  have  been  here 
deliberating  at  this  time.  This  assertion  is  a  fearful  one,  if 
true.  If  the  nation  was  on  the  verge  of  ruin,  the  errors 
which  brought  it  to  that  situation  ought  to  be  known,  probed 
and  corrected — even  if  they  rose  out  of  the  constitution. 
But  it  is  an  assertion  that  ought  not  to  be  lightly  made. 
The  effects  are  dangerous ;  for  what  man  hereafter,  with  such 
consequences  before  his  eyes,  would  venture  to  propose  a 
war  ?  If  such  were  the  admitted  fact,  a  future  enemy  would 
persist  in  war,  expecting  the  country  to  sink  before  his  ef- 
forts ;  his  arms  would  be  nerved,  his  exertions  doubly 
strengthened  against  us.  In  every  view,  the  position  is  one 
of  such  t  dangerous  bearing  on  the  future  relations  of  the 
country,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  admitted  without  the  strong- 
est proof.  What  was  the  fact  ?  What  had  been  the  pro- 
gress of  events  for  a  few  months  preceding  the  termination 
of  the  war  ?  At  Baltimore,  at  Plattsburg,  at  New  Orleans, 
the  invaders  had  been  signally  defeated — a  new  spirit  was 
diffused  through  the  whole  mass  of  the  community.  Can  it 
be  believed,  then,  that  the  Government  was  on  the  verge  of 
dissolution  ?  No,  Sir,  it  never  stood  firmer  on  its  basis  than 
at  that  moment.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  we  labored  under 
great  difficulties  ;  but  it  is  an  observation  made  by  a  states- 


140  SPEECHES. 

man  of  great  sagacity,  Edmund  Burke,  when  Pitt  was  an- 
ticipating the  downfall  of  France,  through  the  failure  of  her 
finances,  that  an  instance  is  not  to  be  found  of  a  high-minded 
nation  sinking  under  financial  difficulties;  and  its  truth  would 
have  been  exemplified  in  our  country  had  the  war  continued. 
Men  on  all  sides  began  to  unite  in  defence  of  the  country  ; 
parties  in  this  House  began  to  rally  on  this  point  ;  and  if 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  had  been  a  member  at 
that  time,  he  also,  from  what  he  has  said,  would  have  taken 
that  ground.  The  gentleman  has  taken,  on  this  point,  a 
position  as  erroneous  as  it  is  dangerous  ;  and  I  have  thought 
proper  thus  to  notice  it. 

As  a  proof  that  the  situation  of  the  country  naturally 
inclines  us  to  too  much  feebleness  rather  than  violence,  I  re- 
fer to  the  fact,  that  there  are,  on  this  floor,  men  who  are  en- 
tirely opposed  to  armies,  to  navies,  to  every  means  of  defence. 
Sir,  if  their  politics  prevail,  the  country  will  be  disarmed 
and  at  the  mercy  of  any  foreign  power.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  excess  of  military  fervor,  no  party  inclining  to 
military  despotism  ;  for  though  a  charge  of  such  a  disposi- 
tion has  been  made  by  a  gentleman  in  debate,  it  is  without 
the  shadow  of  foundation.  What  is  the  fact  in  regard  to 
the  army  ?  Does  it  bear  out  his  assertion  ?  Is  it  even 
proportionally  larger  now  than  it  was  in  1801-2,  the  period 
which  the  gentleman  considers  as  the  standard  of  political 
perfection  ?  It  was  then  about  4,000  men  ;  it  was  larger, 
in  proportion,  than  an  army  of  10,000  men  would  now  be. 
The  charge  of  a  disposition  to  make  this  a  military  govern- 
ment finds  its  support  only  in  the  imaginations  of  gentlemen  ; 
it  cannot  be  sustained  by  facts ;  it  is  contrary  to  reason  and 
to  evidence. 

Dismissing  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  will  now  proceed  to 
consider  another,  in  my  opinion,  equally  important,  viz. : 
what  will  probably  be  the  policy  of  other  nations.  With  the 
world  at  large  we  are  now  at  peace.  I  know  of  no  nation 


SPEECHES.  141 

with  which  we  shall  probably  come  in  collision,  unless  it 
be  with  Great  Britain  and  Spain.  With  both  these  nations 
we  have  many  and  important  points  of  collision.  I  hope  we 
shall  maintain,  in  regard  to  both,  the  strictest  justice  ;  the 
more  so,  as  with  both  there  is  a  possibility,  sooner  or  later, 
of  our  being  engaged  in  war.  As  to  Spain  I  will  say  nothing  ; 
because  she  is  the  inferior  of  the  two,  and  the  measures 
which  apply  to  the  superior  power,  will  include  also  the 
inferior.  I  shall  consider  our  relations,  then,  with  England 
only.  Peace  now  exists  between  the  two  countries.  As  to 
its  duration,  I  will  give  no  opinion,  except  that  I  believe  it 
will  last  the  longer  in  consequence  of  the  war,  which  has  just 
ended.  Evidences  have  been  furnished  during  the  war,  of 
the  capacity  and  character  of  this  country,  which  will  make 
England  indisposed  to  try  her  strength  with  us  on  slight 
grounds.  But  what  will  be  the  probable  course  of  events  re- 
specting the  future  relations  between  the  two  countries  ? 
England  is  the  most  formidable  power  in  the  world  :  she  has 
the  most  numerous  army  and  navy  at  her  command.  We,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  the  most  growing  nation  on  earth  :  most 
rapidly  improving  in  those  very  particulars  in  which  she 
excels.  ^?his  question,  then,  presents  itself :  will  the  greater 
power  permit  the  less  to  attain  its  destined  greatness  by 
natural  growth,  or  will  she  take  measures  to  disturb  it. 
They  who  know  the  history  of  nations,  will  not  believe  that 
a  rival  will  look  unmoved  on  this  prosperity.  It  has  been 
said,  that  nations  have  heads,  but  no  hearts.  Every  states- 
man, every  one  who  loves  his  country,  who  wishes  to  maintain 
its  dignity,  to  see  it  attain  the  summit  of  greatness  and  pros- 
perity, regards  the  progress  of  other  nations  with  a  jealous 
eye.  The  English  statesmen  have  always  so  acted.  I  find 
no  fault  with  them  on  this  account,  but  rather  point  to  the 
example  as  originating  in  a  principle  which  ought  also  to 
govern  our  conduct.  Will  Great  Britain  permit  us  to  go  on 
in  an  uninterrupted  march  to  the  height  of  national  great- 


142  SPEECHES. 

ness  and  prosperity  ?  I  fear  noty  But,  admitting  the  councils 
on  that  side  of  the  water  to  be  governed  by  a  degree  of  mag- 
nanimity and  justice  which  the  world  has  never  experienced 
from  them  (and,  I  am  warranted  in  saying,  never  will),  may 
not  some  unforeseen  collision  involve  us  in  hostilities  ?  Gen- 
tlemen on  the  other  side  have  said,  that  there  are  points  of 
difference  with  that  nation  (existing  prior  to  the  war)  which 
are  yet  unsettled.  I  grant  it.  If  such,  then,  be  the  fact, 
does  it  not  show  that  causes  of  conflict  remain,  and  that 
whenever  the  same  condition  of  the  world  that  excited  them 
into  action  before  the  war,  shall  recur,  the  same  collisions 
will  probably  take  place  again  ?  If  Great  Britain  sees  the 
opportunity  of  enforcing  the  same  doctrines  we  have  already 
contested,  will  she  not  seize  it  ?  Admitting  this  country  to 
maintain  that  policy  which  it  ought  ;  that  its  councils  be 
governed  by  the  most  perfect  justice  and  moderation — yet 
we  see  that,  by  difference  of  views  on  essential  points,  the 
peace  between  the  two  nations  is  liable  to  be  jeopardized. 
I  am  sure  that  future  wars  with  England  are  not  only  pos- 
sible, but,  I  will  say  more,  they  are  highly  probable — nay, 
that  they  will  certainly  take  place.  Future  wars,  I  fear 
(with  the  Honorable  Speaker) — future  wars,  long  and  bloody, 
will  exist  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain.  I  lament 
it ;  but  I  will  not  close  my  eyes  on  future  events  ;  I  will  not 
betray  the  high  trust  reposed  in  me ;  I  will  speak  what  I 
believe  to  be  true.  You  will  have  to  encounter  British 
jealousy  and  hostility  in  every  shape  ;  not  immediately  mani- 
fested by  open  force  or  violence,  perhaps,  but  by  indirect 
attempts  to  check  your  growth  and  prosperity.  As  far  as 
she  can,  she  will  disgrace  every  thing  connected  with  you. 
Her  reviewers,  paragraphists,  and  travellers,  will  assail  you 
and  your  institutions  ;  and  no  means  will  be  left  untried  to 
bring  you  to  contemn  yourselves,  and  be  contemned  by  others. 
I  thank  God,  they  have  not  now  the  means  they  once  possess- 
ed of  effecting  their  objects.  No ;  the  late  war  has  given 


SPEECHES.  143 

you  a  tone  of  feeling  and  thinking  which  forbids  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  national  inferiority — that  first  of  political  evils. 
Had  we  not  encountered  Great  Britain,  we  should  not  have 
had  the  brilliant  points  to  rest  on  which  we  now  have.  We, 
too,  have  now  our  heroes  and  illustrious  actions.  If  Great 
Britain  has  her  Wellington,  we  have  our  Jackson,  Brown 
and  Scott.  If  she  has  her  naval  heroes,  we  also  have  them, 
not  less  renowned — for  they  have  plucked  the  laurel  from 
her  brows.  It  is  impossible  that  we  can  now  be  degraded  by 
comparisons  :  I  trust  we  are  equally  above  corruption  and 
intrigue  ;  and  that  when  the  contest  comes,  it  will  be  tried 
only  by  force  of  arms. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  measures  of  preparation  which 
sound  policy  dictates.  First,  then,  as  to  the  extent,  without 
reference  to  the  kind.  These  measures  ought  to  be  graduated 
by  a  reference  to  the  character  and  capacity  of  both  countries. 
England  excels  in  means  all  countries  that  now  exist,  or  ever 
did  exist  ;  and  has,  besides,  great  moral  resources.  She  is 
intelligent,  and  renowned  for  masculine  virtues.  On  our 
part,  our  measures  ought  to  correspond  with  that  lofty  policy, 
which  becomes  freemen  determined  to  defend  their  rights. 
Thus  circumstanced  on  both  sides,  we  ought  to  omit  no  pre- 
paration fairly  within  the  compass  of  our  means.  Next,  as 
to  the  species  of  preparation — a  question  which  opens  subjects 
of  great  extent  and  importance.  The  navy,  most  certainly, 
in  any  point  of  view,  occupies  the  first  place.  It  is  the  most 
safe,  most  effectual  and  cheapest  mode  of  defence.  For  let 
the  fact  be  remembered,  our  navy  costs  less  per  man,  includ- 
ing all  the  amount  of  extraordinary  expenditures  on  the  lakes, 
than  our  army. 

This  is  an  important  fact  which  ought  to  be  fixed  in  the 
memory  of  the  House  ;  for,  if  the  force  be  the  safest  and  most 
efficient,  which  is  at  the  same  tune  the  cheapest,  on  that 
should  be  our  principal  reliance.  We  have  heard  much  of 
the  danger  of  standing  armies  to  our  liberties  : — the  objection 


144  SPEECHES. 

cannot  be  made  to  the  navy.  Generals,  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged, have  often  advanced  at  the  head  of  armies  to  imperial 
rank  and  power ;  but  in  what  instance  has  an  admiral 
usurped  the  liberties  of  his  country  ?  Put  our  strength  in 
the  navy  for  foreign  defence,  and  we  shall  certainly  escape 
the  whole  catalogue  of  possible  ills  painted  by  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side.  A  naval  force  attacks  that  country,  from 
whose  hostilities,  alone,  we  have  any  thing  to  dread,  where 
she  is  most  assailable,  and  defends  its  own  where  it  is  weak- 
est. Where  is  Great  Britain  most  vulnerable?  In  what 
point  is  she  most  accessible  to  attack  ?  In  her  commerce — 
in  her  navigation.  There  she  is  not  only  exposed,  but  the 
blow  is  fatal.  There  is  her  strength — there  the  secret  of  her 
power.  There,  then,  if  it  ever  shall  become  necessary,  we 
ought  to  strike.  And  where  are  we  most  exposed?  On 
the  Atlantic  line ; — a  line  so  long  and  weak,  that  we  are 
peculiarly  liable  to  be  assailed  on  it.  How  is  it  to  be  de- 
fended ?  By  a  navy,  and  by  a  navy  only,  can  it  be  efficiently 
defended.  Let  us  look  back  to  the  time  when  the  enemy 
was  in  possession  of  the  whole  line  of  the  sea-coast,  moored 
hi  our  rivers,  and  ready  to  assault  us  at  every  point.  The 
facts  are  too  recent  to  require  a  minute  description.  I  will 
only  state,  generally,  that  our  commerce  was  cut  up — our 
specie  circulation  destroyed — our  internal  communication 
interrupted — our  best  and  cheapest  highway  being  entirely 
in  possession  of  the  enemy — our  ports  foreign  the  one  to  the 
other — our  treasury  exhausted  in  merely  defensive  prepara- 
tions and  militia  requisitions — for  not  knowing  where  we 
would  be  assailed,  we  had,  at  the  same  moment,  to  stand 
prepared  at  every  point.  A  recurrence  of  this  state  of  things, 
so  oppressive  to  the  country,  in  the  event  of  another  war, 
can  be  prevented  only  by  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
of  a  sufficient  naval  force.  I  think  it  proper  to  press  thjs 
point  thus  strongly,  because,  though  it  is  generally  assented 
to,  that  the  navy  ought  to  be  increased,  I  find  that  assent  too 


SPEECHES.  145 

cold — the  approbation  bestowed  on  it  too  negative  in  its  char- 
acter. The  navy  ought,  it  is  said,  to  be  gradually  increased. 
If  the  navy  is  to  be  increased  at  all,  let  its  augmentation  be 
limited  only  by  your  ability  to  build,  officer  and  man.  If  it 
is  the  kind  of  force  most  safe,  and  at  the  same  time  most 
efficient  to  guard  against  foreign  invasion,  or  repel  foreign 
aggression,  you  ought  to  put  your  whole  force  on  the  seaside. 
It  is  estimated  that  we  have  in  our  country  eighty  thousand 
sailors.  This  would  enable  us  to  man  a  considerable  fleet, 
which,  if  well-directed,  would  give  us  the  habitual  command 
on  our  own  coast — an  object,  in  every  point  of  view,  so  de- 
sirable. Not  that  we  ought  hastily,  without  due  preparation, 
under  present  circumstances,  to  build  a  large  number  of 
vessels  ;  but  we  ought  to  commence  preparations — establish 
docks,  collect  timber  and  naval  stores ;  and,  as  soon  as  the 
materials  are  prepared,  to  commence  building,  to  the  extent 
which  I  have  mentioned.  If  any  thing  can  preserve  the 
country  in  its  most  imminent  dangers  from  abroad,  it  is  this 
species  of  armament.  If  we  desire  to  be  free  from  future 
wars  (as  I  hope  we  may  be),  this  is  the  only  way  to  effect 
it.  We  shall  have  peace  then,  and,  what  is  of  still  higher 
moment,  peace  with  perfect  security. 

In  regard  to  our  present  military  establishment,  it  is 
small  enough.  This  the  Honorable  Speaker  has  fully  demon- 
strated. It  is  not,  at  present,  sufficiently  large  to  occupy 
all  our  fortresses.  Gentlemen  have  spoken  in  favor  of  the 
militia,  and  against  the  army.  In  regard  to  the  militia, 
I  will  go  as  far  as  any  gentleman,  and  considerably  fur- 
ther than  those  who  are  so  violently  opposed  to  our  small 
army.  I  desire  not  only  to  arm  the  militia,  but  to  extend 
their  term  of  service,  and  make  them  efficient.  To  talk 
about  the  efficiency  of  militia,  called  into  service  for  six 
months  only,  is  to  impose  on  the  people, — to  ruin  them  with 
false  hopes.  I  am  aware  of  the  danger  of  large  standing 
armies,  and  I  know  that  the  militia  constitutes  the  true  force 
VOL.  n. — 10 


146  SPEECHES. 

of  the  country ;  that  no  nation  can  be  safe,  at  home  and 
abroad,  which  has  not  an  efficient  militia  ;  but  the  term  of 
service  ought  to  be  enlarged,  to  enable  them  to  acquire  a 
knowledge  of  the  duties  of  the  camp,  and  to  allow  the 
habits  of  civil  life  to  be  broken.  For  although  militia, 
freshly  drawn  from  their  homes,  may,  in  a  moment  of  en- 
thusiasm, do  great  service,  as  at  New  Orleans ;  yet,  in 
general,  they  are  not  calculated  for  service  in  the  field, 
until  time  is  allowed  them  to  acquire  habits  of  discipline 
and  subordination.  On  land,  your  defence  ought  to  depend 
on  a  regular  draught  from  the  body  of  the  people.  You 
will  thus,  in  time  of  war,  dispense  with  the  business  of  re- 
cruiting, a  mode  of  defending  the  country  every  way  uncon- 
genial with  our  republican  institutions.  Uncertain,  slow  in 
its  operation  and  expensive,  it  draws  from  society  only  its 
worst  materials  ;  introducing  into  our  army,  of  necessity,  all 
the  severities  which  are  exercised  in  that  of  the  most  des- 
potic governments.  Thus  composed,  our  armies,  in  a  great 
degree,  lose  that  enthusiasm  with  which  citizen  soldiers, 
conscious  of  liberty  and  fighting  in  defence  of  their  country, 
have  ever  been  animated.  /  All  the  free  nations  of  antiquity 
intrusted  the  defence  of  flie  country,  not  to  the  dregs  of 
society,  but  to  the  body  of  its  citizens ;  and  hence  that 
heroism,  which  nations,  in  modern  times,  may  admire  but 
cannot  equal:  I  know  that  I  utter  truths  unpleasant  to 
those  who  wish  to  enjoy  liberty  without  making  the  efforts 
necessary  to  secure  it.  Her  favor  is  never  won  by  the  cow- 
ardly, the  vicious,  or  indolent.  It  has  been  said  by  some 
physicians,  that  life  is  a  forced  state.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  freedom^.  It  requires  efforts,  it  presupposes  mental 
and  moraT^ualities  of  a  high  order  to  be  generally  diffused 
in  the  society  where  it  exists.  At  mainly  stands  on  the 
faithful  discharge  of  two  great/ duties  which  every  citizen 
of  proper  age  owes  the  republic  ;  a  wise  and  virtuous  exer- 
cise of  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  a  prompt  and  brave 


SPEECHES.  /  147 

defence  of  the  country  in  the  hour  of  danger.  /  The  first 
symptom  of  decay  has  ever  appeared  in  the  ba/kward  and 
negligent  discharge  of  the  latter  duty.  Those  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  historians  and  orators  of  antiquity, 
know  the  truth  of  this  assertion.  The  least  decay  of 
patriotism,  the  least  verging  towards  pleasure  and  luxury,  will 
there  immediately  discover  itself.  Large  standing  and  merce- 
nary armies  then  become  necessary ;  and  those  who  are  unwil- 
ling to  render  the  military  service  adequate  to  the  defence  of 
their  rights,  soon  find,  as  they  ought  to  do,  a  master.  It  is 
the  order  of  nature,  and  cannot  be  reversed.  The  plan  I  pro- 
pose, will  at  once  put  an  efficient  force  into  your  hands,  and 
render  you  secure.  I  cannot  agree  with  those  who  think  we 
are  free  from  danger,  and  need  not  prepare  for  it,  because 
we  have  no  nation  to  dread  in  our  immediate  neighborhood. 
Recollect  that  the  nation  with  whom  we  have  recently  termi- 
nated a  severe  conflict  lives  on  the  bosom  of  the  deep  ;  that, 
although  three  thousand  miles  of  ocean  intervene  between  us, 
she  can  attack  you  with  as  much  facility  as  if  she  had  but 
two  or  three  hundred  miles  overland  to  march.  She  is  as 
near  to  you  as  if  she  occupied  Canada  instead  of  the  British 
Isles.  You  have  the  power  of  assailing,  as  well  as  of  being 
assailed  ;  her  provinces  border  on  your  territory,  the  dread 
of  losing  which,  if  you  are  prepared  to  attack  them,  will  con- 
tribute to  that  peace  which  every  honest  man  is  anxious  to 
maintain  as  long  as  possible. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  a  point  of  less,  but  still  of  great 
importance, — I  mean  the  establishing  of  roads  and  the  open- 
ing of  canals  through  various  parts  of  the  country.  Your 
country  has  certain  points  of  feebleness  and  certain  points 
of  strength  about  it.  Your  feebleness  ought  to  be  removed 
— your  strength  improved.  Your  population  is  widely  dis- 
persed. Though  this  be  greatly  advantageous  in  one  respect, 
— that  of  preventing  the  country  from  being  permanently 
conquered, — it  imposes  a  great  difficulty  in  defending  it 


148  SPEECHES. 

from  invasion,  because  of  the  difficulty  of  transporta- 
tion from  one  point  to  another  of  your  widely  extended 
frontiers.  We  ought  to  contribute  as  much  as  possible  to 
the  formation  of  good  military  roads,  not  only  on  the  score 
of  general  political  economy,  but  to  enable  us,  on  emergencies, 
to  collect  the  whole  mass  of  our  military  means  on  the  point 
menaced.  The  people  are  brave,  great  and  spirited,  but 
they  must  be  brought  together  in  sufficient  numbers,  and 
with  a,  certain  promptitude,  to  enable  them  to  act  with 
effect.  /  The  importance  of  military  roads  was  well  known  to 
the  Romans.  The  remains  of  their  roads  exist  to  this  day, 
some  of  them  uninjured  by  the  ravages  of  time.  Let  us 
make  great  permanent  roads  ;  not  like  the  Romans  with 
views  of  subjecting  and  ruling  provinces,  but  for  the  more 
honorable  purposes  of  defence,  and  of  connecting  more 
closely  the  interests  of  various  sections  of  this  great  country. 
Let  any  one  look  at  the  vast  cost  of  transportation  during 
the  war,  much  of  which  is  chargeable  to  the  want  of  good 
roads  and  canals,  and  he  will  not  deny  the  vast  importance 
of  a  due  attention  to  this  object/ 

Next,  let  us  consider  the  proper  encouragement  to  be 
afforded  to  the  industry  of  the  country.  In  regard  to  the 
question,  how  far  manufactures  ought  to  be  fostered,  it  is 
the  duty  of  this  country,  as  a  means  of  defence,  to  encourage 
its  domestic  industry,  more  especially  that  part  of  it  which 
provides  the  necessary  materials  for  clothing  and  defence.  Let 
us  look  at  the  nature  of  the  war  most  likely  to  occur.  England 
is  in  possession  of  the  ocean  ;  no  man,  however  sanguine,  can 
believe  that  we  can  soon  deprive  her  of  her  maritime  pre- 
dominance. That  control  deprives  us  of  the  means  of  main- 
taining, cheaply  clad,  our  army  and  navy.  The  question  re- 
lating to  manufactures  must  not  depend  on  the  abstract  prin- 
ciple, that  industry,  left  to  pursue  its  own  course,  will  find, 
in  its  own  interests,  all  the  encouragement  that  is  necessary. 
Laying  the  claims  of  manufacturers  entirely  out  of  view, 


SPEECHES.  149 

on  general  principles,  without  regard  to  their  interests,  a  cer- 
tain encouragement  should  be  extended,  at  least,  to  our  wool- 
len and  cotton  manufactures. 

There  is  another  point  of  preparation  not  to  be  over- 
looked— the  defence  of  our  coast,  by  means  other  than  the 
navy,  on  which  we  ought  to  rely  mainly,  but  not  entirely. 
The  coast  is  our  weak  part,  which  ought  to  be  rendered 
strong,  if  it  be  in  our  power  to  make  it  so.  There  are  two 
points  on  our  coast  particularly  weak — the  mouths  of  the 
Mississippi  and  the  Chesapeake  Bay — which  ought  to  be 
cautiously  attended  to,  not,  however,  neglecting  others.  The 
administration  which  leaves  these  two  points  in  another  war 
without  fortifications,  ought  to  receive  the  execration  of  the 
country.  Look  at  the  facility  afforded  by  the  Chesapeake 
Bay  to  maritime  powers  in  attacking  us.  If  we  estimate 
with  it  the  margin  of  rivers  navigable  for  vessels  of  war,  it 
adds  fourteen  hundred  miles,  at  least,  to  the  line  of  our  sea- 
coast,  and  that  of  the  worst  character  ;  for  when  an  enemy 
is  there,  it  is  without  the  fear  of  being  driven  from  it  :  he 
has,  besides,  the  power  of  assaulting  two  shores  at  the  same 
time,  and  must  be  expected  on  both.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, no  degree  of  expense  would  be  too  great  for  its  de- 
fence. Besides,  the  whole  margin  of  the  Bay  is  an  extreme- 
ly sickly  one,  and  fatal  to  the  militia  of  the  upper  country. 
How  it  is  to  be  defended,  military  and  naval  men  will  be 
best  judges  ;  but  I  believe  that  steam  frigates  ought  at  least 
to  constitute  a  part  of  the  means ;  the  expense  of  which, 
however  great,  the  people  ought  and  would  cheerfully  bear. 

I  might  now  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  other 
points,  but,  for  the  fear  of  fatiguing  them,  I  will  mention 
only  my  views  in  regard  to  our  finances,  as  connected  with 
preparatory  measures.  A  war  with  Great  Britain  will  im- 
mediately distress  your  finances,  so  far  as  your  revenue  de- 
pends on  imports.  It  is  impossible,  during  war,  to  prepare 
a  system  of  internal  revenue  in  time  to  meet  the  defect  thus 


150  SPEECHES. 

occasioned.  Will  Congress  then  leave  the  nation  wholly  de- 
pendent on  foreign  commerce  for  its  revenue  ?  This  Union 
is  rapidly  changing  the  character  of  its  industry.  When  a 
country  is  agricultural,  depending  for  supply  on  foreign  mar- 
kets, its  people  may  be  taxed  through  its  imports  almost  to 
the  amount  of  its  capacity.  *  The  country,  however,  is  rapid- 
ly becoming,  to  a  considerable  extent,  a  manufacturing  com- 
munity. We  find  that  exterior  commerce  (not  including  the 
coasting  trade)  is  every  day  bearing  less  and  less  proportion 
to  the  entire  wealth  and  strength  of  the  nation.  Its  finan- 
cial resources  will,  therefore,  daily  become  weaker  and  weak- 
er, instead  of  growing  with  its  growth,  if  we  do  not  resort  to 
other  objects  than  our  foreign  commerce  for  taxation.  But 
gentlemen  say,  that  the  moral  power  of  the  nation  ought  not 
to  be  neglected  ;  and  that  moral  power  is  inconsistent  with 
oppressive  taxes  on  the  people.  With  oppressive  taxes,  moral 
power  certainly  is  inconsistent  ;  but,  to  make  them  oppres- 
sive, they  must  be  both  heavy  and  unnecessary.  I  agree, 
therefore,  with  gentlemen  in  their  premises,  but  not  in  their 
conclusion,  that,  because  oppressive  taxes  destroy  the  whole 
moral  power  of  the  country,  there  ought,  therefore,  to  be  no 
taxes  at  all.  Such  a  conclusion  is  certainly  erroneous.  Let 
us  examine  the  question,  whether  a  tax  laid  for  the  defence, 
security,  and  lasting  prosperity  of  a  country,  is  calculated  to 
destroy  its  moral  power,  and  more  especially  of  this  country. 
If  such  be  the  fact,  indispensable  as  I  believe  these  taxes  to 
be,  I  will  relinquish  them ;  for  of  all  the  powers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, the  power  of  a  moral  kind  is  most  to  be  cherished. 
We  had  better  give  up  all  our  physical  power,  than  part  with 
this.  But  what  is  moral  power  ?  The  zeal  of  the  country, 
and  the  confidence  it  reposes  in  the  administration  of  its 
Government.  Will  it  be  diminished  by  imposing  taxes 
wisely  and  moderately  ?  If  you  suppose  the  people  intelli- 
gent and  virtuous,  this  cannot  be  admitted.  But  if  a  ma- 
jority of  them  be  ignorant  and  vicious,  then  it  is  probable 


SPEECHES.  151 

that  a  tax  laid  for  the  most  judicious  purpose  may  deprive 
you  of  their  confidence.  The  people,  I  believe,  are  intelli- 
gent and  virtuous.  The  more  wisely,  then,  you  act ;  the  less 
you  yield  to  the  temptation  of  ignoble  and  false  security,  the 
more  you  attract  their  confidence.  The  very  existence  of 
your  Government  proves  their  intelligence  ;  for,  let  me  say 
to  this  House  that,  if  one  who  knew  nothing  of  this  people 
were  made  acquainted  with  its  government,  and  with  the 
fact  that  it  had  sustained  itself  for  thirty  years,  he  would 
know  at  once  that  this  was  a  most  intelligent  and  virtuous 
people.  Convince  the  people  that  measures  are  necessary 
and  wise,  and  they  will  maintain  them.  Already  they  go 
far,  very  far  before  this  House,  in  energy  and  public  spirit. 
If  ever  measures  of  this  description  become  unpopular,  it 
will  be  by  speeches  here.  Are  any  willing  to  lull  the  people 
into  false  security  ?  Can  they  withdraw  their  eyes  from 
facts  menacing  the  prosperity,  if  not  the  existence  of  the 
country  ?  Are  they  willing  to  inspire  them  with  sentiments 
injurious  to  their  lasting  peace  and  prosperity  ?  The  sub- 
ject is  grave  ;  it  is  connected  with  the  happiness  and  exist- 
ence of  our  institutions.  I  most  sincerely  hope  that  the 
members  of  this  House  are  the  real  agents  of  the  people. 
They  are  sent  here,  not  to  consult  their  ease  and  convenience, 
but  their  general  defence  and  common  welfare.  Such  is  the 
language  of  the  constitution.  In  discharge  of  the  sacred 
trust  reposed  in  me  by  those  for  whom  I  act,  I  have  faith- 
fully pointed  out  those  measures  which  our  situation  and  re- 
lation to  the  rest  of  the  world  render  necessary  for  our  secu- 
rity and  prosperity.  They  involve,  no  doubt,  much  expense  ; 
they  require  considerable  sacrifices  on  the  part  of  the  people  ; 
but  are  they  on  that  account  to  be  rejected  ?  We  are  called 
on  to  choose.  On  the  one  side  is  ease,  it  is  true  ;  but,  on 
the  other,  the  security  of  the  country.  We  may  dispense 
with  the  taxes  ;  we  may  neglect  every  measure  of  precau- 
tion, and  feel  no  immediate  disaster ;  but,  in  such  a  state 


152  SPEECHES. 

of  things,  what  virtuous,  what  wise  citizen,  but  must  look 
on  the  future  with  dread.  I  know  of  no  situation  so  responsi- 
ble, if  properly  considered,  as  ours.  We  are  charged  by  Provi- 
dence, not  only  with  the  happiness  of  this  great  and  rising 
people,  but,  in  a  considerable  degree,  with  that  of  the  human 
race.  We  have  a  government  of  a  new  order,  perfectly  dis- 
tinct from  all  others  which  have  preceded  it — a  government 
founded  on  the  rights  of  man  ;  resting,  not  on  authority,  not 
on  prejudice,  not  on  superstition,  but  reason.  If  it  shall 
succeed,  as  fondly  hoped  by  its  founders,  it  will  be  the  com- 
mencement of  a  new  era  in  human  affairs.  All  civilized 
governments  must,  in  the  course  of  time,  conform  to  its 
principles.  Thus  circumstanced,  can  you  hesitate  what 
course  to  choose  ?  The  road  that  wisdom  indicates,  leads, 
it  is  true,  up  the  steep,  but  leads  also  to  security  and  lasting 
glory.  No  nation  that  wants  the  fortitude  to  tread  it,  ought 
ever  to  aspire  to  greatness.  Such  ought,  and  will  sink  into 
the  list  of  those  that  have  done  nothing  to  be  known  or  re- 
membered. It  is  immutable, — it  is  in  the  nature  of  things. 
The  love  of  present  ease  and  pleasure,  indiiference  about  the 
future, — that  fatal  weakness  of  human  nature, — has  never 
failed,  in  individuals  or  nations,  to  sink  to  disgrace  and  ruin. 
On  the  contrary,  virtue  and  wisdom,  which  regard  the  future, 
which  spurn  the  temptations  of  the  moment,  however  rugged 
their  path,  end  in  happiness.  Such  are  the  universal  senti- 
ments of  all  wise  writers,  from  the  didactics  of  the  philoso- 
pher to  the  fictions  of  the  poet.  They  agree  and  inculcate, 
that  pleasure  is  a  flowery  path,  leading  off  among  groves  and 
gardens,  but  ending  in  a  dreary  wilderness  ;  that  it  is  the 
siren's  voice,  that  he  who  listens  to  is  ruined  ;  that  it  is  the 
cup  of  Circe,  of  which  whosoever  drinks,  is  converted  into  a 
swine.  This  is  the  language  of  fiction.  Keason  teaches  the 
same  lesson.  It  is  my  wish  to  elevate  the  national  senti- 
ment to  that  which  animates  every  just  and  virtuous  mind. 
No  effort  is  needed  here  to  impel  us  the  opposite  way.  That 


SPEECHES.  153 

also  may  be  but  too  safely  trusted  to  the  frailties  of  our  na- 
ture. This  country  is  now  in  a  situation  similar  to  that  which 
one  of  the  most  beautiful  writers  of  antiquity  ascribes  to 
Hercules  in  his  youth.  He  represents  the  hero  as  retiring 
into  the  wilderness  to  deliberate  on  the  course  of  life  which 
he  ought  to  choose.  Two  goddesses  approach  him  ;  one 
recommending  a  life  of  ease  and  pleasure  ;  the  other  of  la- 
bor and  virtue.  The  hero  adopts  the  counsel  of  the  latter, 
and  his  fame  and  glory  are  known  to  the  world.  May  this 
country,  the  youthful  Hercules,  possessing  his  form  and  mus- 
cles, be  animated  by  similar  sentiments,  and  follow  his  ex- 
ample ! 


SPEECH 

On  the  Bill,  to  establish  a  National  Bank,  delivered 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  26th, 
1816. 

[NOTE. — A  Bill  "  to  incorporate  the  Subscribers  to  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States,"  was  reported  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  National  Currency,  on  the  8th  of  January,  1816,  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  It  was  not,  it  seems,  called 
up  until  the  26th  of  February  following,  when,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn, the  intervening  orders  were  postponed  for  that  purpose,  and  the 
debate  commenced,  which  continued,  with  little  interruption,  until  the 
14th  of  March,  when  it  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  80  to  71.  The 
discussion  embraced  both  principle  and  detail,  and  the  ablest  men  of 
both  parties  took  part  in  it.  The  supporters  of  the  Bill  were  Messrs. 
Calhoun,  Clay,  Cuthbert,  Sharp,  Condict,  Forsythe,  Grosvenor,  Wilde, 
Telfair,  Wright,  and  others  ;  its  opponents,  Messrs.  Randolph,  Webster, 
Cady,  Pickering,  Pitkin,  Sergeant,  Hanson,  Stanford,  Hopkinson, 
Culpepper,  Gaston,  Hardin,  and  others.  A  large  majority  of  the 


154  SPEECHES. 

Republican  Party  voted  for  the  Bill ; — influenced,  no  doubt,  by  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  tune.] 

ME.  CALHOUN  rose  to  explain  his  views  of  a  subject,  so 
interesting  to  the  republic,  and  so  necessary  to  be  correctly 
understood,  as  that  of  the  bill  now  before  the  committee. 
He  proposed,  at  this  time,  only  to  discuss  general  principles, 
without  reference  to  details.  He  was  aware,  he  said,  that 
principle  and  detail  might  be  united  ;  but  he  should,  at 
present,  keep  them  distinct.  He  did  not  propose  to  com- 
prehend, in  this  discussion,  the  power  of  Congress  to  grant 
bank  charters  ;  nor  the  question  whether  the  general  ten- 
dency of  banks  was  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  the  liberty 
and  prosperity  of  the  country ;  nor  the  question  whether  a 
national  bank  would  be  favorable  to  the  operations  of  the 
Government.  To  discuss  these  questions,  he  conceived, 
would  be  an  useless  consumption  of  time.  The  constitutional 
question  had  been  already  so  freely  and  frequently  discussed, 
that  all  had  made  up  their  minds  on  it.  The  question  whe- 
ther banks  were  favorable  to  public  liberty  and  prosperity, 
was  one  purely  speculative.  The  fact  of  the  existence  of 
banks,  and  their  incorporation  with  the  commercial  concerns 
and  industry  of  the  nation,  prove  that  inquiry  to  come  too 
late.  The  only  question  was,  on  this  hand,  under  what 
modifications  were  banks  most  useful ;  and  whether  the 
United  States  ought,  or  ought  not,  to  exercise  the  power  to 
establish  a  bank.  As  to  the  question  whether  a  national 
bank  would  be  favorable  to  the  administration  of  the  finances 
of  the  Government,  it  was  one  on  which  there  was  so  little 
doubt,  that  gentlemen  would  excuse  him  if  he  did  not  enter 
into  it.  Leaving  all  these  questions,  then,  Mr.  C.  said,  he 
proposed  to  examine  the  cause  and  state  of  the  disorders  of 
the  national  currency,  and  the  question  whether  it  was  in  the 
power  of  Congress,  by  establishing  a  national  bank,  to  remove 
these  disorders.  This,  he  observed,  was  a  question  of  novelty, 


SPEECHES.  155 

and  vital  importance  ;  a  question  which  greatly  affected  the 
character  and  prosperity  of  the  country. 

As  to  the  state  of  the  currency,  Mr.  0.  proceeded  to  re- 
mark, that  it  was  extremely  depreciated,  and,  in  degrees, 
varying  according  to  the  different  sections  of  the  country. 
All  would  assent,  that  this  state  of  the  currency  was  a  stain 
on  public  and  private  credit,  and  injurious  to  the  morals  of 
the  community.  This  was  so  clear  a  position  that  it  required 
no  proof.  There  were,  however,  other  considerations,  arising 
from  the  state  of  the  currency,  not  so  distinctly  felt,  nor  so 
generally  assented  to.  The  state  of  our  circulating  medium 
was,  he  said,  opposed  to  the  principles  of  the  federal  consti- 
tution. The  power  was  given  to  Congress,  by  that  instru- 
ment, in  express  terms,  to  regulate  the  currency  of  the 
United  States.  In  point  of  fact,  he  said,  that  power,  though 
given  to  Congress,  is  not  in  their  hands.  The  power  is 
exercised  by  banking  institutions,  no  longer  responsible  for 
the  correctness  with  which  they  manage  it.  Gold  and  silver 
have  disappeared  entirely.  There  is  no  money  but  paper 
money  ;  and  that  money  is  beyond  the  control  of  Congress. 
No  one,  he  said,  who  referred  to  the  constitution,  could 
doubt  that  the  money  of  the  United  States  was  intended  to 
be  placed  entirely  under  the  control  of  Congress.  The  only 
object  the  framers  of  the  constitution  could  have  had  in  view, 
in  giving  to  Congress  the  power  to  coin  money,  regulate  the 
value  thereof,  and  of  foreign  coins,  must  have  been  to  give 
a  steadiness  and  fixed  value  to  the  currency  of  the  United 
States.  The  state  of  things,  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution,  afforded  Mr.  C.  an  argument  in  support  of 
his  construction.  There  then  existed,  he  said,  a  depreciated 
paper  currency,  which  could  only  be  regulated  and  made 
uniform  by  giving  a  power  for  that  purpose  to  the  General 
Government.  The  States  could  not  do  it.  He  argued, 
therefore,  taking  into  view  the  prohibition  against  the  States 
issuing  bills  of  credit,  that  there  was  a  strong  presumption 


156         ^  SPEECHES. 

this  power  was  intended  to  be  given  exclusively  to  Congress. 
Mr.  C.  acknowledged  there  is  no  provision  in  the  constitution 
by  which  the  States  were  prohibited  from  creating  banks  which 
now  exercise  this  power.  But,  he  said,  that  banks  were  then 
but  little  known.  There  was  but  one,  the  Bank  of  North 
America,  with  a  capital  of  only  four  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  and  the  universal  opinion  was  that  bank-notes  repre- 
sented gold  and  silver  ;  and  that,  under  this  impression,  there 
could  be  no  necessity  to  prohibit  banking  institutions,  be- 
cause their  notes  always  represented  gold  and  silver ;  and 
these  could  not  be  multiplied  beyond  the  demands  of  the 
country.  Mr.  C.  drew  the  distinction  between  banks  of 
deposit  and  banks  of  discount ;  the  latter  of  which  were  then 
but  little  understood,  and  their  abuse  not  conceived  of  until 
demonstrated  by  recent  experience.  No  man,  he  remarked, 
in  the  convention,  as  much  talent  and  wisdom  as  it  con- 
tained, could  possibly  have  foreseen  the  course  of  these  in- 
stitutions ;  that  they  would  have  multiplied  from  one  to  two 
hundred  and  sixty ;  from  a  capital  of  four  hundred  thousand 
dollars  to  one  of  eighty  millions  ;  from  being  consistent  with 
the  provisions  of  the  constitution,  and  the  exclusive  right  of 
Congress  to  regulate  the  currency,  that  they  would  be  directly 
opposed  to  it ;  that,  so  far  from  their  credit  depending  on 
their  punctuality  in  redeeming  their  bills  with  specie,  they 
might  go  on  ad  infinitum  in  violation  of  their  contract,  with- 
out a  dollar  in  their  vaults.  There  had  indeed,  Mr.  C.  said, 
been  an  extraordinary  revolution  in  the  currency  of  the 
country.  By  a  sort  of  under-current,  the  power  of  Congress 
to  regulate  the  money  of  the  country  had  caved  in,  and  upon 
its  ruins  had  sprung  up  those  institutions  which  now  exer- 
cised the  right  of  making  money  for  and  in  the  United 
States  ;  for  gold  and  silver  are  not  now  the  only  money — 
whatever  is  the  medium  of  purchase  and  sale  must  take 
their  place ;  and,  as  bank  paper  alone  was  now  employed 
for  this  purpose,  it  had  become  the  money  of  the  country. 


SPEECHES.  157 

v 

A  change  great  and  wonderful  has  taken  place,  said  he, 
which  divests  you  of  your  rights,  and  turns  you  back  to  the 
condition  of  the  revolutionary  war,  in  which  every  State 
issued  bills  of  credit,  which  were  made  a  legal  tender,  and 
were  of  various  values. 

This  then,  Mr.  C.  said,  was  the  evil.  We  have,  in  lieu 
of  gold  and  silver,  a  paper  medium,  unequally  but  gen- 
erally depreciated,  which  affects  the  trade  and  industry  of 
the  country ;  which  paralyzes  the  national  arm  ;  which 
sullies  the  faith,  both  public  and  private,  of  the  United 
States  ;  a  medium  no  longer  resting  on  gold  and  silver  as  its 
basis.  We  have,  indeed,  laws  regulating  the  currency  of 
foreign  coins  ;  but  they  are,  under  present  circumstances,  a 
mockery  of  legislation,  because  there  is  no  coin  in  circulation. 
The  right  of  making  money,  an  attribute  of  sovereign  pow- 
er, a  sacred  and  important  right,  was  exercised  by  two  hun- 
dred and  sixty  banks,  scattered  over  every  part  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  not  responsible  to  any  power  whatever  for  their 
issues  of  paper.  ^  The  next  and  great  inquiry  was,  he  said, 
how  this  evil  was  to  be  remedied.  Kestore,  said  he,  these 
institutions  to  their  original  use  ;  cause  them  to  give  up 
their  usurped  power  ;  cause  them  to  return  to  their  legiti- 
mate office  of  places  of  discount  and  deposit ;  let  them  be 
no  longer  mere  paper  machines  ;  restore  the  state  of  things 
which  existed  anterior  to  1813,  which  was  consistent  with 
the  just  policy  and  interests  of  the  country  ;  cause  them  to 
fulfil  their  contracts — to  respect  their  broken  faith  ;  resolve 
that  every  where  there  shall  be  a  uniform  value  to  the  nation- 
al currency  ;  your  constitutional  control  will  then  prevail. 

How  then,  he  proceeded  to  examine,  was  this  desirable 
end  to  be  attained  ?  What  difficulty  stood  in  the  way  ? 
The  reason  why  the  banks  could  not  now  comply  with  their 
contracts,  was  that  conduct,  which,  in  private  life,  frequently 
produces  the  same  effect.  It  was  owing  to  the  prodigality 
of  their  engagements,  without  means  to  fulfil  them  ;  to  their 


158         m  SPEECHES 

issuing  more  paper  than  they  could  possibly  redeem  with 
specie.  In  the  United  States,  according  to  the  best  estimate, 
there  were  not  in  the  vaults  of  all  the  banks  more  than  fif- 
teen millions  of  specie,  with  a  capital  amounting  to  about 
eighty-two  millions  of  dollars.  Hence  the  cause  of  the  de- 
preciation of  bank-notes — the  excess  of  paper  in  circulation 
beyond  that  of  specie  in  their  vaults.  This  excess  was  visi- 
ble to  the  eye,  and  almost  audible  to  the  ear ;  so  familiar 
was  the  fact,  that  this  paper  was  emphatically  called  "trash" 
or  "rags"  According  to  estimation,  also,  he  said  there 
were  in  circulation  at  the  same  date,  within  the  United 
States,  two  hundred  millions  of  dollars  of  bank-notes,  credit, 
and  bank  paper  in  one  shape  or  other.  Supposing  thirty 
millions  of  these  to  be  in  possession  of  the  banks  themselves, 
there  were,  perhaps,  one  hundred  and  seventy  millions  actu- 
ally in  circulation,  or  on  which  the  banks  draw  interest.  The 
proportion  between  demand  and  supply,  which  regulates  the 
price  of  every  thing,  regulates  also  the  value  of  this  paper. 
In  proportion  as  the  issue  is  excessive,  it  depreciates  in  value 
— and  no  wonder,  when,  since  1810  or  1811,  the  amount 
of  paper  in  circulation  had  increased  from  eighty  or 
ninety,  to  two  hundred  millions.  Mr.  C.  here  examined  the 
opinion  entertained  by  some  gentlemen,  that  bank  paper 
had  not  depreciated,  but  that  gold  and  silver  had  appre- 
ciated— a  position  he  denied  by  arguments,  founded  on  the 
portability  of  gold  and  silver,  which  would  equalize  their 
value  in  every  part  of  the  United  States  ;  and  on  the  facts 
that  gold  and  silver  coin  had  increased  in  quantity  instead  of 
diminishing,  and  that  exchange  on  Great  Britain  (at  gold 
and  silver  value)  had  been,  for  some  time  past,  in  favor  of 
the  United  States.  Yet,  he  said,  gold  and  silver  were  leav- 
ing our  shores.  In  fact  we  have  degraded  the  metallic  cur- 
rency ;  we  have  treated  it  with  indignity ;  it  leaves  us  and 
seeks  an  asylum  on  foreign  shores.  Let  it  become  again  the 
basis  of  bank  transactions  and  it  will  revisit  us. 


SPEECHES.  159 

Haviug  established,  as  he  conceived,  in  the  course  of  his 
remarks,  that  the  excess  of  paper  issue  was  the  true  and  only 
cause  of  depreciation  of  our  paper  currency,  Mr.  C.  turned 
his  attention  to  the  manner  in  which  that  excess  had  been 
produced.  It  was  intimately  connected  with  the  suspension 
of  specie  payments.  They  stood  as  cause  and  effect.  First, 
the  excessive  issues  caused  the  suspension  of  specie  pay- 
ments ;  and  advantage  had  been  taken  of  that  suspension  to 
issue  still  greater  floods  of  it.  The  banks  had  undertaken  to 
do  a  new  business,  uncongenial  with  the  nature  of  such  insti- 
tutions. They  undertook  to  make  loans  to  Government, 
not  as  brokers,  but  as  stockholders — a  practice  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  specie  payments.  After  showing  the  difference 
between  the  ordinary  business  of  a  bank,  in  discounts,  and 
the  making  loans  for  twelve  years,  Mr.  C.  said,  indisputably 
the  latter  practice  was  a  great  and  leading  cause  of  the  sus- 
pension of  specie  payments.  Of  this  species  of  property 
(public  stock)  the  banks  in  the  United  States  held,  on  the  30th 
day  of  September  last,  about  eighteen  and  a  half  millions, 
and  a  nearly  equal  amount  of  treasury  notes,  besides  stock 
for  long  loans  made  to  the  State  Governments  ;  amounting, 
altogether,  to  nearly  forty  millions — being  a  large  proportion 
of  their  actual  capital.  This,  he  said,  was  the  great  cause 
of  the  suspension  of  specie  payments. 

Had  the  banks  (he  now  discussed  the  question)  the  capacity 
to  resume  specie  payments  ?  If  they  have  the  disposition, 
they  may  resume  specie  payments.  The  banks,  he  said,  were 
not  insolvent :  they  never  were  more  solvent.  If  so,  the  term 
itself  implies,  that  if  time  be  allowed  them  they  may,  before 
long,  be  in  a  condition  to  resume  payments  of  specie.  If  the 
banks  would  regularly  and  consentaneously  begin  to  dispose 
of  their  stock, — to  call  in  their  notes  for  the  treasury  notes 
they  have, — and  moderately  to  curtail  their  private  dis- 
counts ;  if  they  would  act  in  concert  in  this  manner,  they 
might  resume  specie  payments.  If  they  were  to  withdraw, 


160  SPEECHES. 

by  the  sale  of  a  part  only  of  their  stock  and  treasury  notes, 
twenty-five  millions  of  their  notes  from  circulation,  the  rest 
would  be  appreciated  to  par,  or  nearly  so ;  and  they  would 
still  have  fifteen  millions  of  stock  disposable  to  send  to  Eu- 
rope for  specie,  &c.  With  $30,000,000  in  their  vaults,  and 
so  much  of  their  paper  withdrawn  from  circulation,  they 
would  be  in  a  condition  to  resume  payments  in  specie.  The 
only  difficulty — that  of  producing  concert — was  one  which 
it  belonged  to  Congress  to  surmount.  The  indisposition  of 
the  banks,  from  motives  of  interest,  obviously  growing  out 
of  the  vast  profits  most  of  them  have  lately  realized,  by  which 
the  stockholders  have  received  from  12  to  20  per  cent,  on 
their  stock,  would  be,  he  showed,  the  greatest  obstacle. 
What,  he  asked,  was  a  bank  ?  An  institution,  under  present 
uses,  to  make  money.  What  was  the  instinct  of  such  an 
institution  ?  Gain,  gain,  nothing  but  gain  :  and  they  would 
not  willingly  relinquish  their  gain,  from  the  present  state  of 
things  (which  was  profitable  to  them),  acting  as  they  did 
without  restraint  and  without  hazard.  Those  who  believe 
that  the  present  state  of  things  would  ever  cure  itself,  Mr. 
C.  said,  must  believe  what  is  impossible.  Banks  must  change 
their  nature,  lay  aside  their  instinct,  before  they  will  volun- 
tarily aid  in  doing  what  it  is  not  their  interest  to  do.  By  this 
process  of  reasoning  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  rested 
with  Congress  to  make  them  return  to  specie  payments,  by 
making  it  their  interest  to  do  so.  This  introduced  the  sub- 
ject of  the  National  Bank. 

A  national  bank,  he  said,  paying  specie  itself,  would  have 
a  tendency  to  make  specie  payments  general,  as  well  by  its 
influence  as  by  its  example.  It  will  be  the  interest  of  the 
National  Bank  to  produce  this  state  of  things,  because,  other- 
wise, its  operations  will  be  greatly  circumscribed  ;  as  it  must 
pay  out  specie  or  national  bank-notes  :  for  he  presumed  one 
of  the  first  rules  of  such  a  bank  would  be,  to  take  the  notes 
of  no  bank  which  did  not  pay  in  gold  or  silver.  A  national 


SPEECHES.  161 

bank  of  thirty-five  millions,  with  the  aid  of  those  banks 
which  are  at  once  ready  to  pay  specie,  would  produce  a 
powerful  effect  all  over  the  Union.  Further;  a  national 
bank  would  enable  the  Government  to  resort  to  measures 
which  would  make  it  unprofitable  to  banks  to  continue  the 
violation  of  their  contracts,  and  advantageous  to  return  to  the 
observance  of  them.  The  leading  measures,  of  this  character, 
would  be  to  strip  the  banks,  refusing  to  pay  specie,  of  all  the 
profits  arising  from  the  business  of  the  Government ;  to  pro- 
hibit deposits  with  them  ;  and  to  refuse  to  receive  their  notes 
in  payment  of  dues  to  the  Government.  How  far  such 
measures  would  be  efficacious  in  producing  a  return  to  specie 
payments,  he  was  unable  to  say  ;  but  it  was  as  far  as  he  was 
willing  to  go,  at  the  present  session.  If  they  persisted  in  re- 
fusing to  resume  payments  in  specie,  Congress  must  resort  to 
measures  of  a  deeper  tone,  which  they  might  rightfully  do. 

The  restoration  of  specie  payments,  Mr.  0.  argued,  would 
remove  the  embarrassments  under  which  the  industry  of  the 
country  labored,  and  the  stains  from  its  public  and  private 
faith.  It  remained  to  see,  whether  this  House,  without 
whose  aid  it  was  in  vain  to  expect  success  in  this  object, 
would  have  the  fortitude  to  apply  the  remedy.  If  this  was 
not  the  proper  remedy,  he  hoped  such  an  one  would  be  pro- 
posed as  a  substitute,  instead  of  opposing  this  by  vague  and 
general  declamation  against  banks.  The  disease,  he  said, 
was  deep  :  it  affected  public  opinion,  and  whatever  affects 
public  opinion,  touches  the  vitals  of  the  Government.  Here- 
after Congress  would  never  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  this 
measure  in  which  they  now  did.  The  disease  arose  in  time 
of  war — the  war  had  subsided,  but  left  the  disease,  which  it 
was  now  in  the  power  of  Congress  to  eradicate  :  but  if  they 
did  not  now  exercise  the  power,  they  would  become  abettoss 
of  a  state  of  things  which  was  of  vital  consequence  to  pub- 
lic morality,  as  he  showed  by  various  illustrations.  He  called 
upon  the  House,  as  guardians  of  the  public  weal,  of  the 

VOL.    II. — 11 


162  SPEECHES. 

health  of  the  body  politic,  which  depended  on  public  morals, 
to  interpose  against  a  state  of  things  which  was  inconsistent 
with  both.  He  appealed  to  the  House,  too,  as  the  guardians 
of  public  and  private  faith.  In  what  manner,  he  asked, 
were  the  public  contracts  fulfilled  ?  In  gold  and  silver,  in 
which  the  Government  had  stipulated  to  pay  ?  No.  In 
paper  issued  by  these  institutions  ;  in  paper  greatly  depre- 
ciated ;  in  paper  depreciated  from  five  to  twenty  per  cent, 
below  the  currency  in  which  the  Government  had  contracted 
to  pay,  &c.  He  added  another  argument — the  inequality 
of  taxation,  in  consequence  of  the  state  of  the  circulating 
medium ;  which,  notwithstanding  the  taxes  were  laid  with 
strict  regard  to  the  constitutional  provision  for  their  equality, 
made  the  people  in  one  section  of  the  Union  pay,  perhaps, 
one-fifth  more  of  the  same  tax  than  those  in  another.  The 
constitution  having  given  Congress  the  power  to  remedy 
these  evils,  they  were,  he  contended,  deeply  responsible  for 
their  continuance. 

The  evil  he  desired  to  remedy,  Mr.  0.  said,  was  a  deep 
one — almost  incurable,  because  connected  with  public  opin- 
ion, over  which  banks  have  a  great  control.  They  have,  in 
a  great  measure,  a  control  over  the  press,  for  proof  of  which 
he  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  present  wretched  state  of  the 
circulating  medium  had  scarcely  been  denounced  by  a  single 
paper  within  the  United  States.  The  derangement  of  the 
circulating  medium,  he  said,  was  a  joint  thrown  out  of  its 
socket.  Let  it  remain  for  a  short  time  in  that  state,  and  the 
sinews  will  be  so  knit  that  it  cannot  be  replaced  :  apply  the 
remedy  soon,  and  it  is  an  operation  easy,  though  painful. 
The  evil  grows,  while  the  resistance  to  it  becomes  weak,  and 
unless  checked  at  once  will  become  irresistible.  Mr.  C.  con- 
cluded the  speech,  of  which  the  above  is  a  mere  outline,  by 
observing,  that  he  could  have  said  much  more  on  this  impor- 
tant subject,  but  he  knew  how  difficult  it  was  to  gain  the 
attention  of  the  House  to  long  addresses. 


SPEECHES.  163 


SPEECH 

On  the  New  Tariff  Bill,  delivered  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  April  6th,  1816. 

[NoxE. — Under  a  resolution  of  the  House  (February  23, 1815),  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  the  12th  of  February,  1816,  submitted 
an  elaborate  Report  to  Congress,  on  the  subject  of  a  general  tariff  of 
duties  proper  to  be  imposed  on  imported  goods,  wares,  and  merchan- 
dise. On  this  a  Bill  was  subsequently  framed,  reported,  and  referred 
to  the  Committee  of  the' Whole.  The  details  were  discussed  at  great 
length — and  the  Bill,  after  various  amendments,  finally  passed  the 
House,  April  8th,  1816,  by  a  vote  of  88  to  54.  During  the  debate,  an 
amendment  was  moved  by  Mr.  Tucker  (not  Mr.  Randolph,  as  is 
frequently  stated),  to  strike  out  the  minimum  price  of  25  cents  per 
square  yard  on  cottons,  which  was  warmly  discussed.  Mr.  Calhoun, 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  National  Currency,  was,  at  the 
time,  very  busily  engaged  in  framing  his  celebrated  Report ;  when  he 
was  suddenly  called  from  the  committee  room,  by  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  to  reply  to  the  arguments  of  Mr. 
Tucker  and  others.  The  sketch  of  his  remarks  is,  of  course,  imper- 
fect. The  views  expressed  were  uttered  on  the  spur  of  the  occasion, 
without  study  or  premeditation ;  and  were  not  such  (as  the  Speaker 
has  since  publicly  declared)  as  received  the  sanction  of  his  more  ma- 
tured experience  and  reflection.  The  same  remark  may  be  made,  gen- 
erally, of  his  speeches  on  the  Bank  and  Internal  Improvement.] 

THE  debate  heretofore  on  this  subject  has  been  on  the 
degree  of  protection  which  ought  to  be  afforded  to  our  cot- 
ton and  woollen  manufactures  :  all  professing  to  be  friendly 
to  those  infant  establishments,  and  to  be  willing  to  extend  to 
them  adequate  encouragement.  The  present  motion  assumes 
a  new  aspect.  It  is  introduced  professedly  on  the  ground 
that  manufactures  ought  not  to  receive  any  encouragement ; 
and  will,  in  its  operation,  leave  our  cotton  establishments  ex- 


164  SPEECHES. 

posed  to  the  competition  of  the  cotton  goods  of  the  East 
Indies,  which,  it  is  acknowledged  on  all  sides,  they  are  not 
capable  of  meeting  with  success,  without  the  proviso  propos- 
ed to  be  stricken  out  by  the  motion  now  under  discussion. 
Till  the  debate  assumed  this  new  form,  he  had  determined 
to  be  silent ;  participating,  as  he  largely  did,  in  that  general 
anxiety  which  is  felt,  after  so  long  and  laborious  a  session,  to 
return  to  the  bosom  of  our  families.  But,  on  a  subject  of 
such  vital  importance,  touching,  as  it  does,  the  security  and 
permanent  prosperity  of  our  country,  he  hoped  that  the 
House  would  indulge  him  in  a  few  observations.  He  regret- 
ed  much  Ins  want  of  preparation ;  he  meant  not  a  verbal 
preparation,  for  he  had  ever  despised  such ;  but  that  due 
and  mature  meditation  and  arrangement  of  thought  which 
the  House  is  entitled  to  on  the  part  of  those  who  occupy  any 
portion  of  their  time.  But,  whatever  his  arguments  might 
want  on  that  account  in  weight,  he  hoped  might  be  made  up 
in  the  disinterestedness  of  his  situation.  He  was  no  manu- 
facturer ;  he  was  not  from  that  portion  of  our  country  sup- 
posed to  be  peculiarly  interested.  Coming,  as  he  did,  from 
the  South  ;  having,  in  common  with  his  immediate  constitu- 
ents, no  interest,  but  in  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  in  selling 
its  products  high,  and  buying  cheap  the  wants  and  conven- 
iences of  life,  no  motives  could  be  attributed  to  him  but  such 
as  were  disinterested. 

He  had  asserted  that  the  subject  before  them  was  con- 
nected with  the  security  of  the  country.  It  would,  doubt- 
less, by  some  be  considered  a  rash  assertion  ;  but  he  con- 
ceived it  to  be  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof;  and  he 
hoped,  with  due  attention,  to  establish  it  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  House. 

The  security  of  a  country  mainly  depends  on  its  spirit 
and  its  means  ;  and  the  latter  principally  on  its  moneyed 
resources.  Modified  as  the  industry  of  this  country  now  is, 
combined  with  our  peculiar  situation  and  want  of  a  naval 


SPEECHES.  165 

ascendency,  whenever  we  have  the  misfortune  to  be  involved 
in  a  war  with  a  nation  dominant  on  the  ocean — and  it  is 
almost  only  with  such  we  can  at  present  be — the  moneyed 
resources  of  the  country  to  a  great  extent  must  fail.  He 
took  it  for  granted  that  it  was  the  duty  of  this  body  to  adopt 
those  measures  of  prudent  foresight  which  the  event  of  war 
made  necessary.  We  cannot,  he  presumed,  be  indifferent  to 
dangers  from  abroad,  unless,  indeed,  the  House  is  prepared 
to  indulge  in  the  phantom  of  eternal  peace,  which  seems  to 
possess  the  dream  of  some  of  its  members.  Could  such  a 
state  exist,  no  foresight  or  fortitude  would  be  necessary  to 
conduct  the  affairs  of  the  republic  ;  but  as  it  is  the  mere 
illusion  of  the  imaginations/as  every  people  that  ever  has 
or  ever  will  exist  is  subjected  to  the  vicissitudes  of  peace 
and  war,  it  must  ever  be  considered  as  the  plain  dictate  of 
wisdom  in  peace  to  prepare  for  war/  What,  then,  let  us 
consider,  constitute  the  resources  of  this  countiy,  and  what 
are  the  effects  of  war  on  them  ?  Commerce  and  agriculture, 
till  lately  almost  the  only,  still  constitute  the  principal, 
sources  of  our  wealth.  So  long  as  these  remain  uninterrupted, 
the  country  prospers  ;  but  war,  as  we  are  now  circumstanced, 
is  equally  destructive  to  both.  They  both  depend  on  foreign 
markets  ;  and  our  country  is  placed,  as  it  regards  them,  in  a 
situation  strictly  insular  ;  a  wide  ocean  rolls  between.  Our 
commerce  neither  is  nor  can  be  protected  by  the  present 
means  of  the  country.  What,  then,  %are  the  effects  of  a  war 
with  a  maritime  power — with  England  ?  Our  commerce 
annihilated,  spreading  individual  misery  and  producing  na- 
tional poverty  ;  our  agriculture  cut  off  from  its  accustomed 
markets,  the  surplus  product  of  the  farmer  perishes  on  his 
hands,  and  he  ceases  to  produce  because  he  cannot  sell. 
His  resources  are  dried  up,  while  his  expenses  are  greatly 
increased  ;  as  all  manufactured  articles,  the  necessaries  as 
well  as  the  conveniences  of  life,  rise  to  an  extravagant  price. 
The  recent  war  fell  with  peculiar  pressure  on  the  growers  of 


166  SPEECHES. 

cotton  and  tobacco,  and  other  great  staples  of  the  country  ; 
and  the  same  state  of  things  will  recur  in  the  event  of 
another,  unless  prevented  by  the  foresight  of  this  body.  If 
the  mere  statement  of  facts  did  not  carry  conviction  to  every 
mind,  as  he  conceives  it  is  calculated  to  do,  additional 
arguments  might  be  drawn  from  the  general  nature  of 
wealth.  Neither  agriculture,  manufactures,  nor  commerce, 
taken  separately,  is  the  cause  of  wealth  ;  it  flows  from  the 
three  combined,  and  cannot  exist  without  each.  The 
wealth  of  any  single  nation  or  an  individual,  it  is  true,  may 
not  immediately  depend  on  the  three,  but  such  wealth 
always  presupposes  their  existence.  He  viewed  the  words 
in  the  most  enlarged  sense.  Without  commerce,  industry 
would  have  no  stimulus  ;  without  manufactures,  it  would  be 
without  the  means  of  production  ;  and  without  agriculture 
neither  of  the  others  can  subsist.  When  separated  entirely 
and  permanently,  they  perish.  War  in  this  country  pro- 
duces, to  a  great  extent,  that  effect  ;  and  hence  the  great 
embarrassment  which  follows  in  its  train.  The  failure  of  the 
wealth  and  resources  of  the  nation  necessarily  involved  the 
ruin  of  its  finances  and  its  currency.  It  is  admitted  by  the 
most  strenuous  advocates,  on  the  other  side,  that  no  country 
ought  to  be  dependent  on  another  for  its  means  of  defence  ; 
that,  at  least,  our  musket  and  bayonet,  our  cannon  and  ball 
ought  to  be  of  domestic  manufacture.  But  what,  he  asked, 
is  more  necessary  to  the  defence  of  a  country  than  its  cur- 
rency and  finance  ?  Circumstanced  as  our  country  is,  can 
these  stand  the  shock  of  war  ?  Behold  the  effect  of  the 
late  war  on  them.  When  our  manufactures  are  grown  to 
a  certain  perfection,  as  they  soon  will  under  the  fostering 
care  of  Government,  we  will  no  longer  experience  these  evils. 
The  farmer  will  find  a  ready  market  for  his  surplus  produce  ; 
and,  what  is  almost  of  equal  consequence,  a  certain  and 
cheap  supply  of  all  his  wants.  His  prosperity  will  diffuse 
itself  to  every  class  in  the  community  ;  and,  instead  of  that 


SPEECHES.  167 

languor  of  industry  and  individual  distress  now  incident  to 
a  state  of  war  and  suspended  commerce,  the  wealth  and 
vigor  of  the  community  will  not  be  materially  impaired. 
The  arm  of  Government  will  be  nerved ;  and  taxes  in  the 
hour  of  danger,  when  essential  to  the  independence  of  the 
nation,  may  be  greatly  increased ;  loans,  so  uncertain  and 
hazardous,  may  be  less  relied  on  ;  thus  situated,  the  storm  may 
beat  without,  but  within  all  will  be  quiet  and  safe.  To  give 
perfection  to  this  state  of  things,  it  will  be  necessary  to  add, 
as  soon  as  possible,  a  system  of  internal  improvements,  and 
at  least  such  an  extension  of  our  navy  as  will  prevent  the 
cutting  off  our  coasting  trade.  The  advantage  of  each  is  so 
striking  as  not  to  require  illustration,  especially  after  the 
experience  of  the  recent  war.  It  is  thus  the  resources  of  this 
Government  and  people  would  be  placed  beyond  the  power 
of  a  foreign  war  materially  to  impair.  But  it  may  be  said 
that  the  derangement  then  experienced,  resulted,  not  from 
the  cause  assigned,  but  from  the  errors  of  the  weakness  of 
the  Government.  He  admitted  that  many  financial  blun- 
ders were  committed,  for  the  subject  was  new  to  us ;  that 
the  taxes  were  not  laid  sufficiently  early,  or  to  as  great  an 
extent  as  they  ought  to  have  been  ;  and  that  the  loans  were 
in  some  instances  injudiciously  made  ;  but  he  ventured  to 
affirm  that,  had  the  greatest  foresight  and  fortitude  been 
exerted,  the  embarrassment  would  have  been  still  very  great ; 
and  that  even  under  the  best  management,  the  total  derange- 
ment which  was  actually  felt  would  not  have  been  post- 
poned eighteen  months,  had  the  war  so  long  continued. 
How  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  A  war  such  as  this  country 
was  then  involved  in,  in  a  great  measure  dries  up  the  re- 
sources of  individuals,  as  he  had  already  proved ;  and  the 
resources  of  the  Government  are  no  more  than  the  aggregate 
of  the  surplus  incomes  of  individuals  called  into  action  by  a 
system  of  taxation.  It  is  certainly  a  great  political  evil, 
incident  to  the  character  of  the  industry  of  this  country, 


168  SPEECHES. 

that,  however  prosperous  our  situation  when  at  peace,  with 
an  uninterrupted  commerce — and  nothing  then  could  exceed 
it — the  moment  that  we  were  involved  in  war  the  whole  is 
reversed.  When  resources  are  most  needed,  when  indispen- 
sable to  maintain  the  honor,  yes,  the  very  existence  of  the 
nation,  then  they  desert  us.  Our  currency  is  also  sure  to 
experience  the  shock,  and  become  so  deranged  as  to  prevent 
us  from  calling  out  fairly  whatever  of  means  is  left  to  the 
country.  The  result  of  a  war  in  the  present  state  of  our 
naval  power,  is  the  blockade  of  our  coast,  and  consequent 
destruction  of  our  trade.  The  wants  and  habits  of  the 
country,  founded  on  the  use  of  foreign  articles,  must  be 
gratified  ;  importation  to  a  certain  extent  continues,  through 
the  policy  of  the  enemy  or  unlawful  traffic  ;  the  exportation 
of  our  bulky  articles  is  prevented,  too ;  the  specie  of  the 
country  is  drawn  to  pay  the  balance  perpetually  accumulat- 
ing against  us  ;  and  the  final  result  is,  a  total  derangement 
of  our  currency.  ^To  this  distressing  state  of  things  there 
were  two  remedies — and  only  two  ;  one  in  our  power  imme- 
diately, the  other  requiring  much  time  and  exertion  ;  but 
both  constituting,  in  his  opinion,  the  essential  policy  of  thisi 
country  :  he  meant  the  navy  and  domestic  manufactures/ 
By  the  former,  we  could  open  the  way  to  our  markets  ;  by 
the  latter,  we  bring  them  from  beyond  the  ocean,  and  natu- 
ralize them.  Had  we  the  means  of  attaining  an  immediate 
naval  ascendency,  he  acknowledged  that  the  policy  recom- 
mended by  this  bill  would  be  very  questionable  ;  but  as  that 
is  not  the  fact — as  it  is  a  period  remote,  with  any  exertion, 
and  will  be  probably  more  so  from  that  relaxation  of  exertion 
so  natural  in  peace,  when  necessity  is  not  felt,  it  becomes 
the  duty  of  this  House  to  resort,  to  a  considerable  extent,  at 
least  as  far  as  is  proposed,  to  the  only  remaining  remedy. 

But  to  this  it  has  been  objected  that  the  country  is  not 
prepared,  and  that  the  result  of  our  premature  exertion 
would  be  to  bring  distress  on  it  without  effecting  the  intend- 


SPEECHES.  169 

ed  object.  Were  it  so,  however  urgent  the  reasons  in  its  fa- 
vor, we  ought  to  desist,  as  it  is  folly  to  oppose  the  laws  of 
necessity.  But  he  could  not  for  a  moment  yield  to  the  as- 
sertion ;  on  the  contrary,  he  firmly  believed  that  the  country 
is  prepared,  even  to  maturity,  for  the  introduction  of  manu- 
factures. We  have  abundance  of  resources,  and  things  natu- 
rally tend  at  this  moment  in  that  direction.  A  prosperous 
commerce  has  poured  an  immense  amount  of  commercial 
capital  into  this  country.  This  capital  has,  till  lately,  found 
occupation  in  commerce  ;  but  that  state  of  the  world  which 
transferred  it  to  this  country,  and  gave  it  active  employment, 
has  passed  away,  never  to  return.  Where  shall  we  now  find 
full  employment  for  our  prodigious  amount  of  tonnage — 
where  markets  for  the  numerous  and  abundant  products  of 
our  country  ?  This  great  body  of  active  capital,  which  for 
the  moment  has  found  sufficient  employment  in  supplying  our 
markets,  exhausted  by  the  war  and  measures  preceding  it, 
must  find  a  new  direction ;  it  will  not  be  idle.  What  chan- 
nel can  it  take  but  that  of  manufactures  ?  This,  if  things 
continue  as  they  are,  will  be  its  direction.  It  will  introduce 
a  new  era  in  our  affairs,  in  many  respects  highly  advanta- 
geous, and  ought  to  be  countenanced  by  the  Government.  Be- 
sides, we  have  already  surmounted  the  greatest  difficulty  that 
has  ever  been  found  in  undertakings  of  this  kind.  The  cot- 
ton and  woollen  manufactures  are  not  to  be  introduced — they 
are  already  introduced  to  a  great  extent ;  freeing  us  entirely 
from  the  hazards,  and,  in  a  great  measure,  the  sacrifices  ex- 
perienced in  giving  the  capital  of  the  country  a  new  direc- 
tion. The  restrictive  measures  and  the  war,  though  not  in- 
tended for  that  purpose,  have,  by  the  necessary  operation  of 
things,  turned  a  large  amount  of  capital  to  this  new  branch 
of  industry.  He  had  often  heard  it  said,  both  in  and  out  of 
Congress,  that  this  effect  alone  would  indemnify  the  country 
for  all  of  its  losses.  So  high  was  this  tone  of  feeling  when 
the  want  of  these  establishments  was  practically  felt,  that 


170  SPEECHES. 

he  remembered,  during  the  war,  when  some  question  was  agi- 
tated respecting  the  introduction  of  foreign  goods,  that  many 
then  opposed  it,  on  the  grounds  of  injuring  our  manufac- 
tures. He  then  said  that  war  alone  furnished  sufficient  stim- 
ulus, and  perhaps  too  much,  as  it  would  make  their  growth 
unnaturally  rapid  ;  but  that,  on  the  return  of  peace,  it  would 
then  be  time  for  us  to  show  our  affection  for  them.  He  at 
that  time  did  not  expect  an  apathy  and  aversion  to  the  ex- 
tent which  is  now  seen.  But  it  will  no  doubt  be  said,  if  they 
are  so  far  established,  and  if  the  situation  of  the  country  is 
so  favorable  to  their  growth,  where  is  the  necessity  of  afford- 
ing them  protection  ?  It  is  to  put  them  beyond  the  reach 
of  contingency.  Besides,  capital  is  not  yet,  and  cannot  for 
some  time  be,  adjusted  to  the  new  state  of  things.  There  is, 
in  fact,  from  the  operation  of  temporary  causes,  a  great 
pressure  on  these  establishments.  They  had  extended  so 
rapidly  during  the  late  war,  that  many,  he  feared,  were  with- 
out the  requisite  surplus  capital  or  skill  to  meet  the  present 
crisis.  Should  such  prove  to  be  the  fact,  it  would  give  a 
back  set,  and  might,  to  a  great  extent,  endanger  their  ulti- 
mate success.  Should  the  present  owners  be  ruined,  and  the 
workmen  dispersed  and  turned  to  other  pursuits,  the  country 
would  sustain  a  great  loss.  Such  would,  no  doubt,  be  the 
fact  to  a  considerable  extent,  if  not  protected.  Besides,  cir- 
cumstances, if  we  act  with  wisdom,  are  favorable  to  attract 
to  our  country  much  skill  and  industry.  The  country  in 
Europe  having  the  most  skilful  workmen  is  broken  up.  It 
is  to  us,  if  wisely  used,  more  valuable  than  the  repeal  of  the 
Edict  of  Nantz  was  to  England.  She  had  the  prudence  to 
profit  by  it :  let  us  not  discover  less  political  sagacity.  Af- 
ford to  ingenuity  and  industry  immediate  and  ample  protec- 
tion, and  they  will  not  fail  to  give  a  preference  to  this  free 
and  happy  country. 

It  has  been  objected  to  this  bill,  that  it  will  injure  our 
marine,  and  consequently  impair  our  naval  strength.     How 


SPEECHES.  171 

far  it  is  fairly  liable  to  this  charge,  he  was  not  prepared  to 
say.  He  hoped  and  believed  it  would  not,  at  least  to  any 
alarming  extent,  have  that  effect  immediately  ;  and  he  firm- 
ly believed  that  its  lasting  operation  would  be  highly  benefi- 
cial to  our  commerce.  The  trade  to  the  East  Indies  would 
certainly  be  much  affected  ;  but  it  was  stated  in  debate  that 
the  whole  of  the  trade  employed  but  six  hundred  sailors. 
But,  whatever  might  be  the  loss  in  this  or  other  branches  of 
our  foreign  commerce,  he  trusted  it  would  be  amply  compen- 
sated in  our  coasting  trade,  a  branch  of  navigation  wholly 
in  our  own  hands.  It  has  at  all  times  employed  a  great 
amount  of  tonnage  ;  something  more,  he  believed,  than  one- 
third  of  the  whole  :  nor  is  it  liable  to  the  imputation  thrown 
out  by  a  member  from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Graston),  that  it 
produced  inferior  sailors.  It  required  long  and  dangerous 
voyages  ;  and,  if  his  information  was  correct,  no  branch  of 
trade  made  better  or  more  skilful  seamen.  The  fact  that  it 
is  wholly  in  our  own  hands  is  a  very  important  one,  while 
every  branch  of  our  foreign  trade  must  suffer  from  com- 
petition with  other  nations. 

Other  objections  of  a  political  character  were  made  to  the 
encouragement  of  manufactures.  It  is  said  they  destroy  the 
moral  and  physical  power  of  the  people.  This  might  former- 
ly have  been  true,  to  a  considerable  extent,  before  the  perfec- 
tion of  machinery,  and  when  the  success  of  the  manufactures 
depended  on  the  minute  subdivision  of  labor.  At  that  time 
it  required  a  large  portion  of  the  population  of  a  country  to 
be  engaged  in  them  ;  and  every  minute  subdivision  of  labor 
is  undoubtedly  unfavorable  to  the  intellect ;  but  the  great 
perfection  of  machinery  has  in  a  considerable  degree  obviated 
these  objections.  In  fact,  it  has  been  stated  that  the  manu- 
facturing districts  in  England  furnish  the  greatest  number  of 
recruits  to  her  army  ;  and  that,  as  soldiers,  they  are  not  ma- 
terially inferior  to  the  rest  of  her  population.  It  has  been 
further  asserted  that  manufactures  are  the  fruitful  cause  of 


172  SPEECHES. 

pauperism  ;  and  England  has  been  referred  to  as  furnishing 
conclusive  evidence  of  its  truth.  For  his  part,  he  could  per- 
ceive no  such  tendency  in  them,  hut  the  exact  contrary,  as 
they  furnished  new  stimulus  and  means  of  subsistence  to  the 
laboring  classes  of  the  community.  We  ought  not  to  look 
to  the  cotton  and  woollen  establishments  of  Great  Britain 
for  the  prodigious  numbers  of  poor  with  which  her  population 
was  disgraced.  Causes  much  more  efficient  exist.  Her  poor 
laws,  and  statutes  regulating  the  price  of  labor,  with  heavy 
taxes,  were  the  real  causes.  But,  if  it  must  be  so — if  the 
mere  fact  that  England  manufactured  more  than  any  other 
country  explained  the  cause  of  her  having  more  beggars,  it  is 
just  as  reasonable  to  refer  to  it  her  courage,  spirit,  and  all  her 
masculine  virtues,  in  which  she  excels  all  other  nations,  with 
a  single  exception, — he  meant  our  own — in  which  we  might, 
without  vanity,  challenge  a  pre-eminence. 

Another  objection  had  been  made,  which,  he  must  acknow- 
ledge, was  better  founded :  that  capital  employed  in  manu- 
facturing produced  a  greater  dependence  on  the  part  of  the 
employed,  than  in  commerce,  navigation,  or  agriculture.  It 
is  certainly  an  evil,  and  to  be  regretted  ;  but  he  did  not 
think  it  a  decisive  objection  to  the  system  ;  especially  when 
it  had  incidental  political  advantages  which,  in  his  opinion, 
more  than  counterpoised  it.  It  produced  an  interest  strictly 
American, — as  much  so  as  agriculture  ;  in  which  it  had  the 
decided  advantage  of  commerce  or  navigation.  The  country 
will  from  this  derive  much  advantage.  Again,  it  is  calcula- 
ted to  bind  together  more  closely  our  widely-spread  republic. 
It  will  greatly  increase  our  mutual  dependence  and  inter- 
course ;  and  will,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  excite  an  in- 
creased attention  to  Internal  Improvements,  a  subject  every 
way  so  intimately  connected  with  the  ultimate  attainment 
of  national  strength  and  the  perfection  of  our  political  insti- 
tutions. He  regarded  the  fact  that  it  would  make  the  parts 
adhere  more  closely ;  that  it  would  form  a  new  and  most 


SPEECHES.  173 

powerful  cement,  and  outweighing  any  political  objections 
that  might  be  urged  against  the  system.  In  his  opin- 
ion the  liberty  and  the  union  of  this  country  were  insepa- 
rably united.  That,  as  the  destruction  of  the  latter  would 
most  certainly  involve  the  former,  so  its  maintenance  will, 
with  equal  certainty,  preserve  it.  He  did  not  speak  lightly. 
He  had  often  and  long  revolved  it  in  his  mind,  and  he  had  crit- 
ically examined  into  the  causes  that  destroyed  the  liberty  of 
other  states.  There  are  none  that  apply  to  us,  or  apply 
with  a  force  to  alarm.  The  basis  of  our  republic  is  too 
broad,  and  its  structure  too  strong,  to  be  shaken  by  them. 
Its  extension  and  organization  will  be  found  to  afford  effec- 
tual security  against  their  operation  ;  but  let  it  be  deeply  im- 
pressed on  the  heart  of  this  House  and  country,  that,  while 
they  guarded  against  the  old,  they  exposed  us  to  a  new  and 
terrible  danger,  Disunion.  This  single  word  comprehended 
almost  the  sum  of  our  political  dangers  ;  and  against  it  we 
ought  to  be  perpetually  guarded. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Compensation  Bill,  delivered  in  the  House 
of  Kepresentatives,  Jan.  17th,  1817. 

[NOTE. — March  4th,  1816.  Mr.  Johnson  of  Kentucky  moved 
the  appointment  of  a  Special  Committee  to  inquire  into  the  expe- 
diency of  changing  the  mode  of  compensating  Members  of  Congress, 
from  a  per  diem  to  an  annual  allowance  ;  and  on  March  6th,  as  its 
chairman,  reported  a  Bill  fixing  the  amount  at  $1,500  per  session. 
The  debate,  which  continued  until  late  on  March  8th,  when  it  was 
passed  by  a  vote  of  81  to  67,  was  animated  and,  in  some  respects, 
acrimonious.  No  question,  apparently  so  trivial,  ever  produced  so 
general  an  excitement  through  the  country.  The  measure  was  de- 


174  SPEECHES. 

nounced  every  where, — from  the  hustings,  in  the  primary  assemblies 
of  the  people,  and  even  by  the  Legislatures  of  many  of  the  States.  The 
storm  raged  so  violently  that,  early  in  the  ensuing  session  of  Congress, 
a  Bill  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Johnson  was  introduced  to  repeal  the 
obnoxious  Act,  which,  after  some  opposition,  passed  January  23d, 
1817.] 

I  HOPE  the  House  will  not  agree  to  fill  the  blanks  with 
six  dollars,  as  reported  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
I  have  remained  silent  thus  long,  not  that  I  agree  with 
those  who  think  this  a  trivial  question,  but  because  I  was 
anxious,  in  ultimately  making  up  my  mind,  to  profit  by  the 
observations  of  others.  I  have  now,  however,  finally  decided 
on  the  course  I  intend  to  pursue.  If  the  blank  should  be 
filled  with  a  sum  fully  equal  to  the  present  pay,  I  shall  vote 
for  the  bill  on  its  passage  ; — not  that,  in  itself,  I  prefer  the 
daily  to  the  annual  pay  ;  for  on  this  point,  my  opinion 
remains  unaltered.  I  believe  the  latter,  for  several  reasons 
not  necessary  to  repeat,  to  be  in  itself  preferable.  The 
daily,  however,  has  one  advantage  at  present  over  the  other 
mode  ; — it  has  a  better  prospect  of  being  permanent.  If 
the  pay  be  left  in  its  present  form,  it  will  most  certainly  be 
repealed  by  the  next  Congress,  whatever  may  be  the  feelings 
of  a  majority  of  that  body,  as  to  the  mode  or  amount.  They 
will  not  be  free  agents — most  of  them  being  already  com- 
mitted in  the  canvass  for  a  seat  in  this  House.  But  should 
the  mode  be  changed  and  the  amount  retained,  the  very 
men  who  have  turned  out  the  most  of  us,  who  have  been  the 
agitators  in  the  late  elections  will,  in  all  probability,  become 
the  pacificators  ;  for  we  may  be  perfectly  assured  of  one  fact, 
that  the  feelings  of  those  gentlemen  are  very  different  now 
from  what  they  were  before  the  elections.  If  you  change  the 
mode,  they  will  seize  the  opportunity,  and  assert  that  you 
have  now  done  what  ought  originally  to  have  been  done. 
Should  the  blank  not  be  filled  with  an  adequate  sum, — say 
nine  or  ten  dollars  a  day, — I  shall  vote  against  the  passage  of 


SPEECHES.  175 

the  bill,  so  as  to  retain  the  present  law.  But  if  it  must 
come  to  a  repeal,  I  would  prefer  it  to  take  place  after  the 
4th  of  March  next,  so  as  to  leave  the  subject  entirely  open 
for  the  next  Congress.  Such  is  the  course  which  my  judg- 
ment admonishes  me  to  pursue. 

It  has  more  than  once  been  said,  that  this  is  not  an  im- 
portant subject.  If  the  observation  be  made  in  reference  to 
the  members  who  now  compose  this  body,  I  readily  assent. 
To  them  it  is  a  trivial  subject.  They  are  free  agents,  and 
if  they  find  the  sacrifice  too  considerable,  they  can,  at  any 
moment,  return  to  those  private  pursuits,  so  much  more  pro- 
fitable, and,  in  many  respects,  desirable.  We  then,  as  indi- 
viduals, have  no  right  to  complain,  should  the  pay  be 
reduced  to  the  smallest  amount.  But  there  is  another  aspect 
of  this  subject,  of  a  very  different  character.  The  question 
of  adequate,  or  inadequate  compensation  to  the  members  of 
Congress,  is,  if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  very  essence  of  our  liberty.  This  House  is 
the  foundation  of  the  fabric  of  that  liberty.  So  happy  is  its 
constitution,  that,  in  all  instances  of  a  general  nature,  its 
duty  and  its  interest  are  inseparable.  If  I  understand  cor- 
rectly the  structure  of  our  Government,  the  prevailing  prin- 
ciple is  not  so  much  a  balance  of  power  as  a  well  connected 
chain  of  responsibility.  This  responsibility  commences  here, 
and  this  House  is  the  centre  of  its  operation.  The  members 
are  elected  for  two  years  only  ;  and,  at  the  end  of  that  period, 
are  responsible  to  their  constituents  for  the  faithful  discharge 
of  their  public  duties.  Besides,  the  very  structure  of  the  House 
is  admirably  calculated  to  unite  interest  and  duty.  The 
members  of  Congress  have,  in  their  individual  capacity,  no 
power  or  prerogative.  These  attach  to  the  entire  body 
assembled  here,  and  acting  under  certain  set  forms.  We 
then,  as  individuals,  are  not  less  amenable  to  the  laws  which 
we  enact,  than  the  humblest  citizen.  Such  is  the  responsi- 
bility— such  the  structure — such  the  sure  foundation  of 


176  SPEECHES. 

our  liberty.  If  we  turn  our  attention  to  what  are  called  fhe 
co-ordinate  branches  of  our  Government,  we  find  them  very 
differently  constructed.  The  judiciary  is  in  no  degree  re- 
sponsible to  the  people  immediately.  To  Congress — to  this 
body  is  the  whole  of  their  responsibility.  Such  too,  in  a 
great  measure,  is  the  theory  of  our  Government,  as  applied 
to  the  executive  branch.  It  is  true  the  President  is  elected 
for  a  term  of  years  ;  but  that  term  is  twice  the  length  of 
ours  ;  and,  besides,  his  election  is,  in  point  of  fact,  removed 
in  all  of  the  States  three  degrees  from  the  people.  The 
electors  in  many  of  the  States,  are  chosen  by  the  State  Legis- 
latures ;  and  where  that  is  not  formally  the  case,  it  is  never- 
theless in  point  of  fact  effected  through  the  agency  of  those 
bodies.  But  what  mainly  distinguishes  the  legislative  and 
executive  branches,  as  regards  their  actual  responsibility  to 
the  people,  is  the  nature  of  their  operation.  It  is  the  duty  of 
the  former  to  enact  laws,  of  the  latter  to  execute  them. 
Every  citizen  of  ordinary  information,  is  capable,  in  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  of  forming  an  opinion  of  the  propriety  of  the 
law — and,  consequently,  of  judging  whether  Congress  has  or 
has  not  done  its  duty ;  but  of  the  execution  of  the  laws, 
they  are  far  less  competent  to  judge.  How  can  the  com- 
munity judge,  whether  the  President,  in  appointing  officers 
to  execute  the  laws,  has  in  all  cases  been  governed  by  fair 
and  honest  motives,  or  by  favor  and  corruption  ?  How 
much  less  competent  is  it  to  judge  whether  the  application 
of  the  public  money  has  been  made  with  economy  and  fide- 
lity, or  with  extravagance  and  dishonesty  !  These  are  facts 
that  can  be  fully  investigated,  and  brought  before  the  public 
by  Congress,  and  Congress  only.  Hence  it  is  that  the  con- 
stitution has  made  the  President  responsible  to  Congress. 
This,  then,  is  the  essence  of  our  liberty  :  Congress  is  respon- 
sible to  the  people  immediately,  and  the  other  branches  of 
the  Government  are  responsible  to  it.  What,  then,  becomes 
of  the  theory  of  the  Government,  if  the  President  holds 


SPEECHES.  177 

offices  in  his  gift,  which,  as  regards  honor  or  profit,  are  more 
desirable  than  a  seat  in  this  House,  the  only  office  imme- 
diately in  the  gift  of  the  people — 

[Here  Mr.  C.  checked  himself.] 

I  find  myself  committing  an  unpardonable  error,  in  pre- 
senting arguments  to  this  body.  The  ear  of  this  House,  on 
this  subject,  is  closed  to  truth  and  reason.  What  has  pro- 
duced this  magic  spell  ?  Instructions  !  Well,  then,  has  it 
come  to  this  ?  Have  the  people  of  this  counlry  snatched 
the  power  of  deliberation  from  this  body?  Have  they 
resolved  the  Government  into  its  original  elements,  and  re- 
sumed their  primitive  power  of  legislation  ?  Are  we,  then, 
a  body  of  individual  agents,  and  not  a  deliberative  one,  with- 
out the  power,  but  possessing  the  form  of  legislation  ?  If 
such  be  the  fact,  let  gentlemen  produce  their  instructions, 
properly  authenticated.  Let  them  name  the  time  and  place 
at  which  the  people  assembled  and  deliberated  on  this  ques- 
tion. Oh,  no  !  they  have  no  written,  no  verbal  instructions  ; 
but  they  have  implied  instructions.  The  law  is  unpopular, 
arid  they  are  bound  to  repeal  it,  in  opposition  to  their  con- 
sciences and  reason.  Have  gentlemen  reflected  on  the  conse- 
quences of  this  doctrine  ?  Are  we  bound  in  all  cases  to  do 
what  is  popular  ?  If  this  be  true,  how  are  political  errors, 
once  prevalent,  ever  to  be  corrected  ?  Suppose  a  party  to 
spring  up  in  this  country,  whose  real  views  should  be  the  de- 
struction of  liberty  ;  suppose  that,  by  management,  by  the 
patronage  of  offices,  by  the  corruption  of  the  press,  they 
should  delude  the  people,  and  obtain  a  majority  (and  surely 
such  a  state  of  things  is  not  impossible)  ;  what,  then,  will 
be  the  effect  of  this  doctrine  ?  Ought  we  to  sit  quiet  ? 
Ought  we  to  be  dumb  ?  or,  rather,  ought  we  to  approve, 
though  we  see  that  liberty  is  to  be  ingulfed  ?  This  doctrine 
of  implied  instruction,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  is  a  new  one, 
for  the  first  time  broached  in  this  House  ;  and,  if  I  am  not 

VOL.   II. — 12 


178  SPEECHES. 

greatly  deceived,  not  more  new  than  dangerous  It  is  very 
different  in  its  character  and  effects  from  the  old  doctrine, 
that  the  constituents  have  a  right  to  assemble  and  formally 
to  instruct  the  representative  ;  and  though  I  would  not  hold 
myself  bound  to  obey  any  such  instructions,  yet  I  con- 
ceive that  the  doctrine  is  not  of  a  very  dangerous  character, 
as  the  good  sense  of  the  people  has  as  yet  prevented  them 
from  exercising  such  a  right,  and  will,  in  all  probability,  in 
future  prevent  them.  But  this  novel  doctrine  is  of  a  far 
different  character.  Such  instructions  may  exist  any  day, 
and  on  any  subject.  It  may  be  always  at  hand  to  justify 
any  aberration  from  political  duty.  I  ask  its  advocates,  in 
what  do  they  differ  in  their  actions  from  the  mere  trimmer — 
the  political  weathercock  ?  It  is  true,  the  one  may  have  in 
view  his  own  advancement,  in  consulting  his  popularity  ; 
and  the  other  may  be  governed  by  a  mistaken  but  con- 
scientious regard  to  duty  ;  yet,  how  is  the  country  benefited 
by  this  difference,  since  they  equally  abandon  the  plain  road 
of  truth  and  reason,  to  worship  at  the  shrine  of  this  political 
idol  ?  It  was  said  by  a  member  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 
Conner),  that  this  right  of  instruction  is  only  denied  in 
monarchies  ;  and  in  proof  of  it,  he  cited  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Burke,  (whom  he  called  a  pensioner,)  expressed  at  the  Bristol 
election.  So  far  is  he  from  being  correct,  that  in  none  of 
the  free  governments  of  antiquity  can  he  point  out  the  least 
trace  of  his  doctrine.  It  originated  in  the  modern  govern- 
ments of  Europe,  particularly  in  that  of  Great  Britain.  The 
English  parliament  had,  at  its  origin,  no  other  power  or  duty 
but  to  grant  money  to  the  crown ;  and  as  the  members  of 
that  body  were  frequently  urgently  pressed  to  enlarge  their 
money-grants,  it  was  a  very  convenient  excuse,  to  avoid  the 
squeeze,  to  say  that  they  were  not  instructed.  The  gentle- 
man was  incorrect  in  calling  Burke  a  pensioner,  at  the  time 
he  delivered  the  celebrated  speech  at  the  Bristol  polls. 
Burke,  at  that  time,  whatever  may  have  been  his  subsequent 


SPEECHES.  179 

character,  was  a  prominent  champion  in  the  cause  of  liberty 
and  of  this  country  ;  and  if  the  gentleman  will  recur  to  the 
points  in  which  he  refused  to  obey  the  instructions  of  his 
constituents,  it  will  not  greatly  increase  his  affection  for 
such  doctrines.  That  mind  must  be  greatly  different  from 
mine,  which  can  read  that  speech,  and  not  embrace  its 
doctrines. 

I,  too,  am  an  advocate  for  instruction.  I  am  instructed. 
The  constitution  is  my  letter  of  instruction.  Written  by 
the  hand  of  the  people — stamped  with  their  authority — it 
admits  of  no  doubt  as  to  its  obligations.  Your  very  acts  in 
opposition  to  its  authority,  are  null.  This  is  the  solemn 
voice  of  the  people,  to  which  I  bow  in  perfect  submission. 
It  is  here  the  vox  populi  is  the  vox  Dei.  This  is  the  all- 
powerful  creative  voice  which  spake  our  Government  into 
existence,  and  made  us  politically  as  we  are.  This  body  is 
the  first  orb  in  the  political  creation,  and  stands  next  in  au- 
thority to  the  original  creative  voice  of  the  people  ;  and  any 
attempt  to  give  a  different  direction  to  its  movement,  from 
what  the  constitution  and  the  deliberate  consideration  of  its 
members  point  out,  I  consider  as  an  innovation  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  Government.  /  This  is  necessary,  to  make  the 
people  really  happy  ;  and  dny  one  invested  with  public  au- 
thority, ought  to  be  as  sensibly  alive  to  the  people's  happi- 
ness, as  some  gentlemen  wish  the  House  to  be  to  mere 
popularity.  A.  know  that  such  is  the  structure  of  our 
Government,  that  the  permanent  feeling  of  the  community 
will  impress  itself  on  this  House.  I  rejoice  that  such  is  the 
fact,  as  there  would  be  no  security  for  liberty,  were  it  other- 
wise. The  sense  of  the  people,  operating  fairly  and  consti- 
tutionally through  elections,  will  be  felt  on  this  very  subject, 
at  the  very  next  session/  but  surely  the  question  by  whom 
the  repeal  is  to  be  effected,  is  one  of  no  slight  importance. 
It  can,  by  our  successors,  if  they  think  proper,  be  at  least 
consistently  done  ;  by  us,  it  cannot.  Should  we  reduce  the 


180  SPEECHES. 

compensation  to  the  old  rates,  when  it  is  well  known  that 
the  sense  of  a  great  majority  of  this  House  is  wholly  averse 
to  it,  besides  the  great  loss  of  individual  character  which  we 
must  sustain,  it  is  calculated  to  bring  into  suspicion  the 
political  characters  of  all,  to  the  great  injury  of  the  pub- 
lic. You  may  rely  on  it,  the  public  wish  and  expect  us 
to  act  on  the  convictions  of  our  mind  and  will,  and  will  not 
tolerate  the  idea,  that  either  on  this  or  any  other  important 
occasion  you  are  acting  a  part,  and  that  you  studiously 
shape  your  conduct  to  catch  the  applause  of  the  audience. 

I  hope  I  shall  not  be  misunderstood  :  that,  while  I  com- 
bat the  idea  that  we  are  bound  to  do  such  acts  as  will  render 
us  popular  (for  such  I  understand  to  be  the  doctrine),  we 
are  to  overlook  the  character  of  those  for  whom  we  arfe  to 
make  laws.  This  is  most  studiously  to  be  regarded,  y  The 
laws  ought,  in  all  cases,  to  fit  the  permanent  and  settled 
character  of  the  community.  The  state  of  public  feeling, 
then,  is  a  fact  to  be  reasoned  upon,  and  to  receive  that 
weight  on  any  particular  question  to  which  it  may  fairly  be 
entitled.  But,  for  my  part,  I  prefer  that  erectness  of  mind 
which,  in  all  cases,  is  disposed  to  embrace  what  is,  in  itself, 
just  and  wise.  Such  a  character  of  mind  I  think  more  use- 
ful, under  our  form  of  government,  than  any  other,  and  more 
certain  of  the  applause  of  after  ages.  If  I  be  not  mistaken, 
it  constitutes  the  very  essence  of  the  admired  characters  of 
antiquity,  such  as  Cato,  Phocion,  and  Aristides  ;  and  if  we 
could  conceive  them  divested  of  this  trait,  they  would  cease 
to  be  the  objects  of  our  admiration. 

Taking  it  for  granted  that  I  have  succeeded  in  proving 
that  this  House  is  at  liberty  to  decide  on  this  question  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates  of  its  best  judgment,  I  now  resume 
the  argument  where  I  dropped  it.  I  have-  proved  that  this 
House  is  the  foundation  of  our  liberty ;  that  it  is  responsible 
to  the  people  for  the  faithful  discharge  of  its  duties,  and 
that  every  other  branch  of  Government  is  responsible  to  it,  as 


SPEECHES.  181 

the  immediate  representative  of  the  people  ;  and,  that  it  is 
essential  to  the  fair  operation  of  the  principles  of  our  consti- 
tution, that  this  body  be  not  in  any  degree  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  other  branches  of  the  Government.  How  then 
stands  the  fact  ?  I  beg  that  no  one  will  attribute  to  me 
factious  views.  I  shall  speak  with  relation  to  no  particular 
measure  or  men.  I  wish  simply  to  illustrate  general  princi- 
ples ;  to  speak  to  the  constitution  and  the  laws.  How  then, 
I  repeat,  is  the  fact  ?  Are  there  not  in  the  power  of  the 
President  a  multitude  of  offices  more  profitable,  and  many 
both  more  profitable  and  honorable,  in  public  estimation, 
than  a  seat  in  this  House — the  only  office  in  the  General  Gov- 
ernment in  the  gift  of  the  people  ?  Have  we  not  seen,  in 
many  instances,  men  attracted  out  of  this  house  to  fill  subor- 
dinate Executive  offices,  whose  only  temptation  was  pay  ; — 
and  what  is  far  more  dangerous,  and  in  every  respect  much 
more  to  be  dreaded,  do  we  not  see  the  very  best  talents  of 
the  House,  men  of  the  most  aspiring  character,  anxious  to 
fill  the  departments  or  foreign  missions  ?  Let  me  not  be 
understood  to  throw  blame  on  them.  The.  fault  is  not  so 
much  in  them  as  in  the  system.  Congress,  then,  is  only  the 
first  step  in  the  flight  of  honorable  distinction ; — so  high 
the  people  can  raise  the  aspirant ; — to  go  beyond,  to  rise  to 
the  highest,  the  Executive  must  take  him  by  the  hand.  On 
what  side,  then,  must  his  inclination  be  ?  on  the  side  of  his 
constituents,  who  can  do  no  more  than  keep  him  where  he 
is  ?  or  on  that  of  the  Executive  power,  on  whom  his  future 
hopes  must  depend  ?  Setting  corruption  aside,  which  I  be- 
lieve has  made  no  inroad  on  us,  take  human  nature  as  it  is, 
can  you  expect  in  ordinary  virtue,  that  vigilant  and  bold 
oversight  over  the  Executive  power  which  the  constitution 
supposes,  and  which  is  necessary  to  coerce  a  power  possessed 
of  so  much  patronage  ?  I  am  aware  the  evil  is  difficult  to 
be  cured.  It  is  the  opinion  of  some,  that  no  member  of  either 
House  ought  to  be  capable  of  appointment  to  any  office 


182  SPEECHES. 

for  the  term  for  which,  the  President  is  elected.  It  is  woi- 
thy  of  reflection.  For  my  part,  but  one  objection  occurs  to 
me,  which  I  cannot  surmount :  I  fear  that  so  long  as  the 
Executive  offices  which  I  have  mentioned,  continue  to  be 
more  desirable  than  a  seat  in  this  House,  such  a  regulation 
would  tend  still  further  to  depress  the  legislature.  The  best 
materials  for  politics  would  systematically  avoid  Congress, 
and  approach  Executive  favor  through  some  other  avenue. 
Whether  this  or  some  other  plan  be  adopted  in  part,  I  am 
confident  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  seat  in  Congress  more  de- 
sirable than  it  is  even  at  the  present  pay.  What  sum  was 
sufficient  for  that  purpose  I  stated  last  year  in  debate,  and  I 
have  only  to  regret,  that  the  country  did  not  see  the  same 
necessity  with  me  on  this  point.  Gentlemen  say  we  ought 
to  come  here  for  pure  patriotism  and  honor.  It  sounds  well ; 
but,  if  the  system  be  adopted  to  its  full  extent,  there  will 
be  found  neither  patriotism  nor  honor  sufficient  for  continual 
privations.  We  must  regard  human  nature  as  it  is,  and  par- 
ticularly that  portion  for  which  wp  legislate.  Our  country- 
men, with  many  admirable  qualities,  are,  in  my  opinion, 
greatly  distinguished  by  the  love  of  acquisition — I  will  not 
call  it  avarice  —  and  the  love  of  honorable  distinction.  I 
object  to  neither  of  these  traits.  They  both  grow  necessari- 
ly out  of  the  character  of  our  country  and  institutions.  Our 
population  advances  beyond  that  of  all  other  countries  ; 
marriages  in  all  conditions  of  life  take  place  at  an  early  pe- 
riod. Hence  the  duty  imposed  on  almost  every  one  to  make 
provision  for  a  growing  family  ;  hence  our  love  of  gain,  which 
in  most  instances,  is  founded  on  the  purest  virtues.  The 
love  of  distinction  is  not  less  deeply  fixed.  In  a  country 
where  qualities  are  so  mixed,  reliance  ought  not  to  be  had 
wholly  on  honor  or  on  profit.  They  ought  to  be  blended  in 
due  proportion.  The  truth  is,  that  no  office  requiring  long- 
continued  privations  will  be  honored,  unless  duly  rewarded  ; 
for,  if  not,  it  ceases  to  be  an  object  of  pursuit.  If  these 


SPEECHES.  183 

views  be  correct,  the  effect  of  an  adequate  reward  is  not  only 
to  attract  talent  to  the  place  where  it  is  most  needed — the 
legislature — but  to  make  it  more  stationary  there,  and,  what 
is  more  essential,  to  place  it  more  beyond  Executive  control, 
and  thus  to  realize  the  full  effects  of  the  theory  of  your 
Government.  The  additional  expense  would  not  be  felt ; 
and  I  know  of  no  other  objection,  which  has  the  least  plausi- 
bility, except,  that  we  cannot  plead  the  example  of  any  other 
country  ;  and  that  it  is  calculated  to  produce  too  much  com- 
petition for  a  seat  in  Congress.  I  acknowledge  the  want  of 
example  in  other  countries,  and  I  think  it  worth  serious  in- 
vestigation, what  effect  it  has  had  on  the  permanency  of 
their  liberties.  But  why  should  we  look  for  examples  either 
to  the  State  legislatures  or  to  other  countries  ?  In  what 
other  instance  have  the  duties  of  legislation  involved  so  great 
a  sacrifice  of  time  and  domestic  pursuits  ?  Compare  our 
services  here  with  those  of  a  judge,  or  of  Executive  officers, 
and  they  will  be  found  not  less  burdensome.  Nor  do  I  fear 
that  the  competition  for  a  seat  in  Congress  will  be  too  ani- 
mated. I  believe  that  a  sharply  contested  election,  if  cor- 
ruption does  not  enter,  is  of  public  advantage.  It  brings 
the  proceedings  of  this  body  more  fully  before  the  people, 
and  makes  them  much  better  acquainted  with  their  interest. 
It  even  makes  a  seat  here  more  honorable  in  public  estima- 
tion. Nor  am  I  afraid  that  competition  will  produce  corrup- 
tion. Fifteen  hundred  or  two  thousand  dollars  a  year  will 
not  be  sufficient  for  this  purpose.  An  election  to  Congress 
is,  in  this  respect,  more  safe  than  that  to  a  State  legislature, 
as  it  requires  so  many  more  to  elect  to  the  former  than  to 
the  latter.  This  security  grows  with  the  increasing  growth 
of  the  country  ;  as  the  number  of  constituents  increase  rela- 
tively to  the  representatives.  There  are  other  and  im- 
portant considerations  connected  with  a  just  compensation  to 
the  members  of  this  body ;  but,  as  they  have  been  fairly 
presented  by  the  report  of  the  committee,  I  will  not  fully 


184  SPEECHES. 

discuss  them.  By  inadequate  pay,  you  close  the  door  of 
public  honor  on  some  of  the  most  deserving  citizens.  Tal- 
ent in  this  country  is  principally  from  the  middling  and  low- 
er classes.  These,  in  fact,  constitute  the  great  body  of  the 
community.  A  young  man  of  talents  spends  his  property 
and  time  in  acquiring  sufficient  information  to  pursue  a  pro- 
fession ;  he  proves  worthy  of  public  confidence  ;  ought  he 
not  to  receive  indemnity  for  the  application  of  his  time  and 
talents  to  the  service  of  his  country  ?  It  would  be  economy 
with  a  vengeance,  to  exclude  all  such  from  the  halls  of  legis- 
lation, or  to  make  them  mere  political  adventurers,  who 
would  enter  here  only  for  further  promotion.  The  extent  of 
our  country  points  out  another  and  powerful  reason  why  the 
pay  should  be  respectable.  No  one  is  fit  for  legislation  who 
does  not  constantly  bear  in  mind  that  our  republic  is  dis- 
tinguished from  all  others  that  have  ever  existed,  by  the  ex- 
tent of  its  territory.  While  we  derive  from  this  distinction 
many  advantages,  we  are  liable  to  great  and  menacing  dan- 
gers. While  we  behold  our  growth  with  pride,  it  must,  at 
the  same  time,  impress  us  with  awe.  It  is  our  duty  to  over- 
come space  by  every  means  in.  our  power.  We  ought  to  at- 
tract suitable  talents  from  the  most  distant  part  of  our  re- 
public by  a  full  and  generous  allowance.  Distance  itself 
constitutes  a  great  objection  with  many  to  perform  the 
duties  of  this  body.  Should  the  men  who,  by  nature  and 
study,  are  endowed  with  requisite  qualities  for  public  service, 
be  forced  by  a  miserable  parsimony  either  to  direct  their 
talents  to  private  pursuits,  or  to  the  affairs  of  the  respective 
States,  and  men  of  inferior  capacity  be  sent  to  this  body, 
who  can  measure  the  public  misfortune  ?  What  will  tend 
more  powerfully  to  dissever  this  Union  ?  Some  have  taken 
up  the  idea,  as  extraordinary  as  it  may  seem,  that  the  in- 
creased pay  to  the  members  is,  in  its  nature,  aristocratical. 
What  !  is  it  aristocratical  to  compensate  the  public  servant 
for  his  services  to  the  public?  Can  it  be  considered  as 


SPEECHES.  185 

favoring  the  power  of  a  few,  to  extend  the  power  and  influ- 
ence of  the  people  in  the  affairs  of  the  General  Government  ? 
It  enables  them  to  select  the  best  talents  for  their  own  im- 
mediate service  ;  it  raises  them  in  the  scale  of  influence,  by 
causing  the  most  shining  and  aspiring  talents  to  be  depend- 
ent on  them  for  promotion  and  honor  ;  it  makes  their  service 
more  desirable  than  that  of  the  Executive  employments  ; 
and,  by  a  simple  process,  enables  them,  through  their  imme- 
diate agents,  this  House,  to  hold  a  controlling  power  over 
any  department  of  the  Government.  Such  is  the  aristocrat- 
ical  tendency  of  this  reprobated  measure.  I  might  extend 
my  observations  much  further  on  this  most  important  subject ; 
but  so  much  has  been  well  said  by  others,  that  I  will  abstain. 
I  must,  however,  present  to  the  House  a  reason,  which,  I 
believe,  has  not  as  yet  been  touched  on  :  I  mean  the  happy 
effect  which  an  adequate  compensation  would  have  on  the 
tone  of  parties  in  our  country.  Make  a  seat  in  Congress 
what  it  ought  to  be — the  first  post  in  the  community  next 
to  the  Presidency,  and  men  of  the  greatest  distinction  in 
every  part  of  the  country  will  seek  it.  The  post,  then,  of 
honor  and  distinction  being  in  the  people,  and  not  in  the 
President,  will  be  open  to  all  parties,  in  proportion  to  their 
ascendency  in  the  Union.  That  entire  monopoly  of  honor 
and  public  profit  by  the  majority  will  not  be  experienced, 
which  must  be  felt,  when  the  honors  of  the  country  are 
principally  in  the  hands  of  the  Chief  Magistrate.  Those 
who  best  understand  our  nature,  can  the  most  fully  appreci- 
ate the  consequences.  Although  it  may  not  abate  the  heat 
of  party,  it  will  greatly  affect  its  feelings  towards  our  happy 
political  institutions. 


186  SPEECHES. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Bill  to  set  aside  the  Bank  dividends  and  bo 
nus  as  a  permanent  fund  for  the  construction  oi 
Roads  and  Canals,  delivered  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, February  4th,  1817. 

[NOTE. — This  Bill,  pledging  the  bonus  and  dividends  of  United 
States  stock  on  the  shares  held  by  the  Government  in  the  National  Bank, 
was  reported  by  the  special  committee,  to  whom  the  subject  had  been 
referred,  on  December  23d,  1816;  and  on  the  4th  of  February  fol- 
lowing, discussed  at  some  length  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  when 
it  was  amended  in  several  particulars.  On  the  7th  of  February,  the 
debate  was  renewed  in  the  House,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  King  to  post- 
pone it  indefinitely,  and  continued,  with  much  animation,  until  late 
the  next  day,  when  it  passed  by  a  vote  of  86  to  84.] 

MB.  CHAIRMAN  : — It  seems  to  be  the  fate  of  some  mea- 
sures to  be  praised,  but  not  adopted.  Such,  1  fear,  will  be 
the  fate  of  this  on  which  we  are  now  deliberating.  From 
the  indisposition  manifested  by  the  House  to  go  into  commit- 
tee on  the  bill,  there  is  not  much  prospect  of  its  success  ;  yet 
it  seems  to  me,  when  I  reflect  how  favorable  is  the  present 
moment,  and  how  confessedly  important  a  good  system  of 
roads  and  canals  is  to  our  country,  I  may  be  reasonably  very 
sanguine  of  success.  /  At  peace  with  all  the  world  ;  abound- 
ing in  pecuniary  means  ;  and,  what  is  of  the  most  import- 
ance, and  at  which  I  rejoice,  as  most  favorable  to  the  coun- 
try, party  and  sectional  feelings  merged  in  a  liberal  and 
enlightened  regard  to  the  general  concerns  of  the  country. 
Such  are  the  favorable  circumstances  under  which  we  are 
now  deliberating.  Thus  situated,  to  what  can  we  direct  our 
resources  and  .attention  more  important  than  internal  im- 
provements ?  /What  can  add  more  to  the  wealth,  the  strength, 


SPEECHES.  187 

and  the  political  prosperity  of  our  country  ?/  The  manner 
in  which  facility  and  cheapness  of  intercourse  contribute  to 
the  wealth  of  a  nation,  has  been  so  often  and  ably  discussed 
by  writers  on  political  economy,  that  I  presume  the  House  to 
be  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  subject.  It  is  sufficient  to 
observe,  that  every  branch  of  national  industry — agricultu- 
ral, manufacturing,  and  commercial — is  greatly  stimulated 
by  it,  and  rendered  more  productive.  The  result  is,  that  it 
tends  to  diffuse  universal  opulence.  It  gives  to  the  interior 
the  advantages  possessed  by  the  parts  most  eligibly  situated 
for  trade.  It  makes  the  country  price,  whether  in  the  sale 
of  the  raw  product,  or  in  the  purchase  of  articles  for 
consumption,  approximate  to  that  of  the  commercial  towns. 
In  fact,  if  we  look  into  the  nature  of  wealth^we  will  find 
tha^nothing  can._^jnQrelj^oraHaJ^its-growth.  tha,n  .good 
roads  and  canals.  An  article,  to  command^a  price,  must  not 
onljj^  useful,  but  must  be  the  subject  of  demand  ;  and  the 
better  the  means  of  commercial  intercourse,  the  larger  is  the 
sphenrof  demand.  The  truth  of  these  positions  is  obvious, 
and  has  been  tested  by  all  countries  where  the  experiment 
has  been  made.  It  has,  particularly,  been  strikingly  exempli- 
fied in  England  ;  and  if  the  result  there,  in  a  country  so 
limited,  and  so  similar  in  its  products,  has  been  to  produce  a 
most  uncommon  state  of  opulence,  what  may  we  not  expect 
from  the  same  cause  in  our  country,  abounding,  as  it  does,  in 
the  greatest  variety  of  products,  and  presenting  the  greatest 
facility  for  improvement  ?  Let  it  not  be  said  that  internal 
improvements  may  be  wholly  left  to  the  enterprise  of  the 
States  and  of  individuals.  I  know  that  much  may  justly 
be  expected  to  be  done  by  them  ;  but,  in  a  country  so  new 
and  so  extensive  as  ours,  there  is  room  enough  for  all  the 
G-eneral  and  State  Governments,  and  individuals,  in  which  to 
exert  their  resources.  yTJut  many  of  the  improvements  con- 
templated are  on  too  great  a  scale  for  the  resources  of  the 
States  or  individuals  ;  and  many  of  such  a  nature  as  the  rival 


188  SPEECHES. 

jealousy  of  the  States,  if  left  alone,  would  prevent.  They 
require  the  resources  and  the  general  superintendence  of  this 
Government  to  effect  and  complete  theny 

I  But  there  are  higher  and  more  powerful  considerations 
why  Congress  ought  to  take  charge  of  this  subject.  *If  we 
were  only  to  consider  the  pecuniary  advantages  of  a  good 
system  of  roads  and  canals,  it  might,  indeed,  admit  of  some 
doubt  whether  they  ought  not  to  be  left  wholly  to  individual 
exertions  ;  but,  when  we  come  to  consider  how  intimately 
the  strength  and  political  prosperity  of  the  republic  are  con- 
nected with  this  subject,  we  find  the  most  urgent  reasons 
why  we  should  apply  our  resources  to  them. '  In  many  re- 
spects, no  country,  of  equal  population  and  wealth,  possesses 
equal  materials  of  power  with  ours.  The  people,  in  muscu- 
lar power,  in  hardy  and  enterprising  habits,  and  in  lofty  and 
gallant  courage,  are  surpassed  by  none.  In  one  respect,  and, 
in  my  opinion,  in  one  only,  are  we  materially  weak.  We  oc> 
cupjLjLSurface  prodigiously  great  in  proportion  to  our  numbers. 
The  common  strength  is  brought  to  bear  with  great  difficulty 
on  the  point  that  may  be  menaced  by  an  enemy.  It  is our 
duty,_then,  as  far  as  in  the^nature  of  things  it  can  be  effect- 
ed, to  counteract  this  weakness.  Good  roads  and  canals, 
juaTciously  laid  out",~are  the~proper  remedy.  In  the  recent 
war,  howjnuch  did  we  suffer  for  the~want  of  them  !  'Be- 
sidelfthe  tardiness  ari3  the  consequeritiHi  inefficacy  of  our 
military  movements,  to  what  an  increased  expense  was  the 
country  put  for  the  article  of  transportation  alone  y  In  the 
event  of  another  war,  the  saving,  in  this  particular,  would  go 
far  towards  indemnifying  us  for  the  expense  of  constructing 
the  means  of  transportation. 

It  is  not,  however,  in  this  respect  only,  that  roads  and 
canals  add  to  the  strength  of  the  country.  Our  pojeer  of 
raising  revenue,  in  war  particularly,  depends  mainly  on  them. 
In  pace,  our  revenue  depends  principally  on  the  imports  : 
in  war,  this  source,  in  a  great  measure,  fails,  and  internal 


SPEECHES.  189 

taxes,  to  a  great  amount,  become  necessary.  Unless  the 
means  of  commercial  intercourse  are  rendered  much  more 
perfect  than  they  now  are,  we  shaff  never  "JBe~able^m~war, 
to  raise~fh"e~1tiecessary  supplies.  If  taxes  were  collected  in  » 
kind  ;  "if,  for  instance,  the  farmer  and  mechanic  paid  in  their 
surplus  produce,  then  the  difficulty  would  not  exist :  as.  in 
no  country  on  earth  is  there  so  great  a  surplus,  in  proportion 
to  its  population,  as  in  ours.  But  such  a  system  of  taxes  is 
impossible.  They  must  be  paid  in  money  ;  and,  by  the 
constitution,  must  be  laid  uniformly.  What,  then,  is  the 
effect  ?  The  taxes  are  raised  in  every  part  of  this  extensive 
country  uniformly  ;  but  the  expenditure  must,  in  its  nature, 
be  principally  confined  to  the  scene  of  military  operations. 
This  drains  the  circulating  medium  from  one  part,  and  accu- 
mulates it  in  another,  and,  perhaps,  a  very  distant  one.  The 
result  is  obvious.  Unless  it  can  return  through  the  opera- 
tion of  trade,  the  part  from  which  the  constant  drain  takes 
place,  must  ultimately  be  impoverished.  Commercial  inter- 
course is  the  true  remedy  for  this  weakness  :  and  the  means 
by  which  this  is  to  be  effected,  are  roads,  canals,  and  the 
coasting  trade.  On  these,  combined  with  domestic  manu- 
factures, does  the  moneyed  capacity  of  this  country,  in  war, 
depend.  Without  them,  not  only  will  we  be  unable  to  raise 
the  necessary  supplies,  but  the  currency  of  the  country  must 
necessarily  fall  into  the  greatest  disorder  ;  such  as  we  lately 
experienced. 

^But,  on  this  subject  of  national  power,  what  can  be  more 
important  than  a  perfect  unity  in  every  part,  in  feelings  and 
sentiments  ?  And  what  can  tend  more  powerfully  to  pro- 
duce it  than  overcoming  the  effects  of  distance/?  2$o  statey 
enjoying  freedom,  ever  ono/gpied  ajxy  thing  liVp  *#  gr^at.an 
extent  of  country  as  this  republic.  One  hundred  years  ago, 
the  most  profound  philosophers  did  not  believe  it  to  be  even 
possible.  They  dicijiot  suppose  it  possible  that  a  pure  re- 
public could  exist  on  as  great  a  scale  even  as  the  island  of 


190  SPEECHES. 

Great  Britain  ?  What  then  was  considered  as  chimerical, 
we  now  have  the  felicity  to  enjoy  ;  and,  what  is  more  re- 
markable, such  is  the  happy  mould  of  our  Government  —  so 
wisely  are  thjLJJStftte  ai1^  Gpnpr^]  pnwprs  arranged  —  that 
much  of  our  political  happiness  derives  its  origin  from  the 
extent  of  our  republic.  It  has  exempted  Ufltrom  most  of 

reuisea  whinh   ritstrfl.ntp.rj  foft  pynq.^  republics  ofantiquitY. 


ihft  re 

^  /Let  it  not,  however,  be  forgotten  ;  let  it  be  for  ever  kept  in 
/  mind,  that  it  exposes  us  to  the  greatest  of  all  calamities  — 
next  to  the  loss  of  liberty  —  and  even  to  that  in  its  conse- 
quence —  disunion/  We  are  great,  and  rapidly  —  I  was  about 
to  say  fearfully  —  growing.  This  is  our  pride  and  our  danger  ; 
our  weakness  and  our  strength/  Little  does  he  deserve  to 
be  intrusted  with  the  liberties  of  this  people,  who  does  not 
raise  his  mind  to  these  truths/  We  are  under  the  most 
imperious  obligation  to  counteract  every  tendency  to  dis- 
union. The  strongest  of  all  cements  is,  undoubtedly,  the. 
wisdom,  justice,  and  above  all,  the  moderation  of  this  House/ 
yet  the  great  subject  on  which  we  are  now  deliberating,  in 
this  respect  deserves  the  most  serious  consideration.  What- 
ever impedes  the  intercourse  of  the  extremes  with  this,  the 
centre  of  the  republic,  weakens  the  union.  Themore  en- 
larged thesphere  of  commercial  circulation  —  trie  more  ex- 
tended that  of  social  intercourse  —  the  more  strongly  are  we 
bound  together  —  the  more  inseparable  are  our  destinies. 
who  understand  the  human  heart  best  know  how 
powerfully  distance  tends  to  break  the  sympathies  of  our 
nature.  Nothing  —  not  even  dissimilarity  of  language  —  tends 
more  to  estrange  man  from  man.  Let  us,  then,  bind  the 
republic  together  with  a  perfect  system  of  roads  and  canals/ 
Let  us  conquer  space.  It  is  thus  the  most  distant  parts  of 
the  republic  will  be  brought  within  a  few  days'  travel  of  the 
centre  ;  it  is  thus  that  a  citizen  of  the  W^est  will  read  the 
news  of  Boston  still  moist  from  the  press.  The  mail  and 
the  press  are  the  nerves  of  the  body  politic.  By  them,  the 


SPEECHES.  191 

slightest  impression  made  on  the  most  remote  parts,  is  com- 
municated to  the  whole  system ;  and  the  more  perfect  the 
means  of  transportation,  the  more  rapid  and  true  the  vibra- 
tion. To  aid  us  in  this  great  work — to  maintain  the  integ- 
rity of  this  republic,  we  inhabit  a  country  presenting  the 
most  admirable  advantages.  Belted  around,  as  it  is,  by 
lakes  and  oceans — -intersected  in  every  direction  by  bays  and 
rivers,  the  hand  of  industry  and  art  is  tempted  to  improve- 
ment/ So  situated,  blessed  with  a  form  of  government  at 
once  combining  liberty  and  strength,  we  may  reasonably 
raise  our  eyes  to  a  most  splendid  future,  if  we  only  act  in  a 
manner  worthy  of  our  advantages.  If,  however,  neglecting 
them,  we  permit  a  low,  sordid,  selfish  and  sectional  spirit  to 
take  possession  of  this  House,  this  happy  scene  will  vanish. 
We  will  divide  ; — and  in  its  consequences  will  follow,  misery 
and  despotism./ 

/*£ o  legislate  for  our  country,  requires  not  only  the  most 
enlarged  views,  but  a  species  of  self-devotion  not  exacted  in 
any  other.  In  a  country  so  extensive,  and  so  various  in  its 
interests,  what  is  necessary  for  the  common  good  may  appa- 
rently be  opposed  to  the  interest  of  particular  sections.  It  T 
must  be  submitted  to  as  the  condition  of  our  greatness.  But 
were  we  a  small  republic  ;  were  we  confined  to  the  ten  miles 
square,  the  selfish  instincts  of  our  nature  might,  in  most 
cases,  be  relied  on  in  the  management  of  public  affairs? 

Such,  then,  being  the  obvious  advantages  of  internal 
improvements,  why  should  the  House  hesitate  to  commence 
the  system  ?  I  understand  there  are,  with  some  members, 
constitutional  objections.  The  power  of  Congress  is  objected 
to  :  first,  that  there  is  none  to  cut  a  road  or  canal  through  a 
State,  without  its  consent ;  and  next,  that  the  public  moneys 
can  only  be  appropriated  to  effect  the  particular  powers 
enumerated  in  the  constitution.  The  first  of  these  objections, 
it  is  plain,  does  not  apply  to  this  bill.  No  particular  road  or 
canal  is  proposed  to  be  cut  through  any  State.  The  bill 


192  SPEECHES. 

simply  appropriates  money  to  the  general  purpose  of  im- 
proving the  means  of  intercommunication.  When  a  bill  is 
introduced  to  apply  the  money  to  a  particular  object  in  any.-;' 
State,  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  the  question  be  fairly 
before  us.  I  express  no  opinion  on  this  point.  In  fact, 
I  scarcely  think  it  worth  the  discussion,  since  the  good  sense 
of  the  States  may  be  relied  on.  They  will,  in  all  cases, 
readily  yield  their  assent.  The  fear  is  in  a  different  direc- 
tion :  in  too  great  a  solicitude  to  obtain  an  undue  share  to 
be  expended  within  their  respective  limits.  In  fact,  as  I  un- 
derstand it,  this  is  not  the  objection  insisted  on.  It  is  mainly 
urged,  that  the  Congress  can  only  apply  the  public  money  in 
execution  of  the  enumerated  powers.  I  am  no  advocate  for 
refined  arguments  on  the  constitution.  The  instrument  was 
not  intended  as  a  thesis  for  the  logician  to  exercise  his  inge- 
nuity on.  It  ought  to  be  construed  with  plain,  good  sense  ; 
and  what  can  be  more  express  than  the  constitution  on  this 
very  point  ?  The  first  power  delegated  to  Congress  is  com- 
prised in  these  words :  "  To  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties, 
imposts,  and  excises,  to  pay  the  debts,  and  provide  for  the 
common  defence  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States  ; 
but  all  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  shall  be  uniform  through- 
out the  United  States."  First,  the  power  is  given  to  lay 
taxes  ;  next,  the  objects  are  enumerated  to  which  the  money 
accruing  from  the  exercise  of  this  power,  may  be  applied — 
viz.,  to  pay  the  debts,  provide  for  the  defence,  and  promote 
the  general  welfare  ;  and  last,  the  rule  for  laying  the  taxes 
is  prescribed — to  wit,  that  all  duties,  imposts,  and  excises, 
shall  be  uniform.  If  the  framers  had  intended  to  limit  the 
use  of  the  money  to  the  powers  afterwards  enumerated  and 
defined,  nothing  could  have  been  more  easy  than  to  have 
expressed  it  plainly.  I  know  it  is  the  opinion  of  some,  that 
the  words  "  to  pay  the  debts,  and  provide  for  the  common 
defence  and  general  welfare,"  which  I  have  just  cited,  were 
not  intended  to  be  referred  to  the  power  of  laying  taxes, 


SPEECHES.  193 

contained  in  the  first  part  of  the  section,  but  that  they  are 
to  be  understood  as  distinct  and  independent  powers,  granted 
in  general  terms  ;  and  are  qualified  by  a  more  detailed  enu- 
meration of  powers  in  the  subsequent  part  of  the  constitu- 
tion. If  such  were,  in  fact,  the  meaning  intended,  surely 
nothing  can  be  conceived  more  bungling  and  awkward  than 
the  manner  in  which  the  framers  have  communicated  their 
intention.  If  it  were  their  intention  to  make  a  summary  of 
the  powers  of  Congress  in  general  terms,  which  were  after- 
wards to  be  particularly  defined  and  enumerated,  they  should 
have  told  us  so  plainly  and  distinctly  ;  and  if  the  words  "  to 
pay  the  debts,  and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and  gen- 
eral welfare  "  were  intended  for  this  summary,  they  should 
have  headed  the  list  of  our  powers,  and  it  should  have  been 
stated  that,  to  effect  these  general  objects,  the  following 
specific  powers  were  granted.  I  ask  members  to  read  the 
section  with  attention ;  and  it  will,  I  conceive,  plainly  appear 
that  such  could  not  have  been  the  intention.  The  whole 
section  seemed  to  me  to  be  about  taxes.  It  plainly  com- 
mences and  ends  with  it ;  and  nothing  could  be  more  strained 
than  to  suppose  the  intermediate  words  "  to  pay  the  debts, 
and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and  general  welfare," 
were  to  be  taken  as  independent  and  distinct  powers.  Forced, 
however,  as  such  a  construction  was,  I  might  admit  it,  and 
urge  that  the  words  do  constitute  a  part  of  the  enumerated 
powers.  The  constitution  gives  to  Congress  the  power  to 
establish  post-offices  and  post-roads.  I  know  the  interpreta- 
tion usually  given  to  these  words  confines  our  powers  to  that 
of  designating  only  the  post-roads  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  word  "establish"  comprehends  something  more.  But 
suppose  the  constitution  to  be  silent,  why  should  we  be  con- 
fined in  the  application  of  moneys  to  the  enumerated  powers  ? 
There  is  nothing  in  the  reason  of  the  thing,  that  I  can  per- 
ceive, why  it  should  be  so  restricted  ;  and  the  habitual  and 
uniform  practice  of  the  Government  coincides  with  my  opinion. 

VOL.   II. — 13 


194  SPEECHES. 

Our  laws  are  full  of  instances  of  money  appropriated  without 
any  reference  to  the  enumerated  powers.  We  granted,  by 
an  unanimous  vote,  or  nearly  so,  $50,000  to  the  distressed 
inhabitants  of  Caraccas,  and  a  very  large  sum,  at  two  dif- 
ferent times,  to  the  St.  Domingo  refugees.  If  we  are  re- 
stricted in  the  use  of  our  money  to  the  enumerated  powers, 
on  what  principle  can  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  be  justified  ? 
To  pass  over  many  other  instances,  the  identical  power,  which 
is  now  the  subject  of  discussion,  has,  in  several  instances, 
been  exercised.  To  look  no  further  back — at  the  last  session 
a  considerable  sum  was  granted  to  complete  the  Cumberland 
Road.  In  reply  to  this  uniform  course  of  legislation,  I  expect 
it  will  be  said,  that  our  constitution  is  founded  on  positive 
and  written  principles,  and  not  on  precedents.  I  do  not 
deny  the  position  ;  but  I  have  introduced  these  instances  to 
prove  the  uniform  sense  of  Congress,  and  the  country  (for 
they  have  not  been  objected  to),  as  to  our  powers ;  and 
surely  they  furnish  better  evidence  of  the  true  interpretation 
of  the  constitution  than  the  most  refined  and  subtle  argu- 
ments. 

Let  it  not  be  argued,  that  the  construction  for  which  I 
contend  gives  a  dangerous  extent  to  the  powers  of  Congress. 
In  this  point  of  view,  I  conceive  it  to  be  more  safe  than  the 
opposite.  By  giving  a  reasonable  extent  to  the  money  power, 
it  exempts  us  from  the  necessity  of  giving  a  strained  and 
forced  construction  to  the  other  enumerated  powers.  For 
instance,  if  the  public  money  could  be  applied  to  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana,  as  I  contend  it  may  be,  then  there  was 
no  constitutional  difficulty  in  that  purchase  ;  but  if  it  could 
not,  then  are  we  compelled  either  to  deny  that  we  had  the 
power  to  purchase,  or  to  strain  some  of  the  enumerated 
powers,  to  prove  our  right.  It  has,  for  instance,  been  said, 
that  we  had  the  right  to  purchase,  under  the  power  to  ad- 
mit new  States  ;  a  construction,  I  venture  to  say,  far  more 


SPEECHES.  195 

forced  than  the  one  for  which  I  contend.     Such  are  my 
views  as  to  our  power  to  pass  this  bill. 

I  believe  that  the  passage  of  the  bill  would  not  be  much 
endangered  by  a  doubt  of  the  power ;  for  I  conceive,  on  that 
point,  there  are  not  many  who  were  opposed.  The  mode  is 
principally  objected  to.  A  system,  it  is  contended,  ought  to 
be  presented  before  the  money  is  appropriated.  I  think  dif- 
ferently. To  set  apart  the  fund,  appears  to  me  to  be, 
naturally,  the  first  act ;  at  least  I  take  it  to  be  the  only 
practicable  course.  A  bill  filled  with  details  would  have  but 
a  faint  prospect  of  passing.  The  enemies  to  any  possible  sys- 
tem in  detail,  and  those  who  are  opposed  in  principle,  would 
unite  and  defeat  it.  Though  I  am  unwilling  to  incorporate 
details  in  the  bill,  yet  I  am  not  averse  to  presenting  my 
views  on  that  point.  The  first  great  object  is  to  perfect  the 
communication  from  Maine  to  Louisiana.  This  may  be 
fairly  considered  as  the  principal  artery  of  fche  whole  system. 
The  next  is  the  connection  of  the  Lakes  with  the  Hudson 
River.  In  a  political,  commercial,  and  military  point  of 
view,  few  objects  can  be  more  important.  The  next  object 
of  chief  importance  is,  to  connect  all  the  great  commercial 
points  on  the  Atlantic, — Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Washing- 
ton, Richmond,  Charleston,  and  Savannah, — with  the  West- 
ern States ;  and  finally,  to  perfect  the  intercourse  between 
the  West  and  New  Orleans.  These  seem  to  me  to  be  the 
great  objects.  There  are  others,  no  doubt,  of  great  import- 
ance, which  would  receive  the  aid  of  Grovernment.  The  fund 
proposed  to  be  set  apart  in  this  bill  is  about  $650,000  a  year, 
which  is,  doubtless,  too  small  to  effect  such  great  objects  of 
itself ;  but  it  will  be  a  good  beginning  ;  and  I  have  no  doubt, 
when  it  is  once  begun,  the  great  work  will  be  completed.  If 
the  bill  succeed,  at  the  next  session  the  details  may  be  arranged 
and  the  system  commenced.  I  cannot  regard  those  who  ob- 
ject merely  to  the  mode,  as  being  very  heartily  in  favor 
of  the  system.  Every  member  must  know  that,  in  all 


196  SPEECHES. 

great  measures,  it  is  necessary  to  concede  something  ;  as  it 
is  impossible  to  make  all  think  alike  on  the  minutiae  of  the 
measure,  who  are  agreed  in  principle.  A  deep  conviction  of 
the  importance  of  the  thing  itself  is  almost  sure  to  be  accom- 
panied with  a  liberal  spirit  of  concession.  The  committee 
who  introduced  this  bill  gave  it  the  shape,  in  their  opinion, 
the  most  proper  in  itself,  and  the  most  likely  to  succeed.  If 
it  cannot  pass  in  its  present  form,  and  under  the  present 
circumstances,  it  is  certainly  very  doubtful  whether  it  ever 
will.  I  feel  a  deep  solicitude  in  relation  to  it.  I  am  anx- 
ious that  this  Congress  shall  have  the  reputation  of  it ;  and  1 
am  the  more  so,  on  account  of  the  feelings  which  have  been 
created  against  it.  No  body  of  men,  in  my  opinion,  ever  better 
merited,  than  this  Congress,  the  confidence  of  the  country. 
For  wisdom,  firmness,  and  industry,  it  has  never  been  ex- 
celled. To  its  acts,  I  appeal  for  the  truth  of  my  assertions. 
The  country  already  begins  to  experience  the  benefits  of 
its  foresight  and  firmness.  The  diseased  state  of  the  cur- 
rency, which  many  thought  incurable,  and  most  thought 
could  not  be  healed  in  so  short  a  time,  begins  to  exhibit 
symptoms  of  speedy  health.  Uninfluenced  by  any  other 
considerations  than  love  of  country  and  duty,  let  us  add  this 
to  the  many  useful  measures  already  adopted.  The  money 
cannot  be  appropriated  to  a  more  exalted  use.  Every  por- 
tion of  the  community — the  farmer,  mechanic,  and  merchant 
— will  feel  its  good  effects  ;  and,  what  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance, the  strength  of  the  community  will  be  augmented, 
and  its  political  prosperity  rendered  more  secure. 


SPEECHES  197 


SPEECH 

On  the  Revenue  Collection  Bill  (commonly  called  the 
Force  Bill),  in  reference  to  the  Ordinance  of  the 
South  Carolina  Convention,  delivered  in  the 
Senate,  February  15th  and  16th,  1833. 

MK.  PRESIDENT  : — I  know  not  which  is  most  objection- 
able, the  provisions  of  the  bill,  or  the  temper  in  which  its 
adoption  has  been  urged.  If  the  extraordinary  powers  with 
which  the  bill  proposes  to  clothe  the  Executive,  to  the  utter 
prostration  of  the  constitution  and  the  rights  of  the  States, 
be  calculated  to  impress  our  minds  with  alarm  at  the  rapid 
progress  of  despotism  in  our  country ;  the  zeal  with  which 
every  circumstance  calcuated  to  misrepresent  or  exaggerate 
the  conduct  of  Carolina  in  the  controversy,  is  seized  on  with 
a  view  to  excite  hostility  against  her,  but  too  plainly  indi- 
cates the  deep  decay  of  that  brotherly  feeling  which  once  ex- 
isted between  these  States,  and  to  which  we  are  indebted  for 
our  beautiful  federal  system,  and  by  the  continuance  of 
which  alone  it  can  be  preserved.  It  is  not  my  intention  to 
advert  to  all  these  misrepresentations  ;  but  there  are  some  so 
well  calculated  to  mislead  the  mind  as  to  the  real  character 
of  the  controversy,  and  to  hold  up  the  State  in  a  light  so 
odious,  that  I  do  not  feel  myself  justified  in  permitting  them 
to  pass  unnoticed. 

Among  them,  one  of  the  most  prominent  is,  the  false 
statement  that  the  object  of  South  Carolina  is  to  exempt 
herself  from  her  share  of  the  public  burdens,  while  she  par- 
ticipates in  the  advantages  of  the  Government.  If  the 
charge  were  true — if  the  State  were  capable  of  being  actuated 
by  such  low  and  unworthy  motives,  mother  as  I  consider  her, 
I  would  not  stand  up  on  this  floor  to  vindicate  her  conduct. 


198  SPEECHES. 

Among  her  faults, — and  faults  I  will  not  deny  she  has, — no 
one  has  ever  yet  charged  her  with  that  low  and  most  sordid 
of  vices — avarice.  Her  conduct,  on  all  occasions,  has  been 
marked  with  the  very  opposite  quality/1  From  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Revolution — from  its  first  breaking  out  at 
Boston  till  this  hour,  no  State  has  been  more  profuse  of  its 
blood  in  the  cause  of  the  country  ;  nor  has  any  contributed 
so  largely  to  the  common  treasury  in  proportion  to  wealth 
and  population.  She  has,  in  that  proportion,  contributed 
more  to  the  exports  of  the  Union, — on  the  exchange  of  which 
with  the  rest  of  the  world  the  greater  portion  of  the  public 
burden  has  been  levied, — than  any  other  State.  No :  the 
controversy  is  not  such  as  has  been  stated ;  the  State  does 
not  seek  to  participate  in  the  advantages  of  the  Government 
without  contributing  her  full  share  to  the  public  treasury. 
Her  object  is  far  different.  A  deep  constitutional  question 
lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  controversy.  The  real  question  at 
issue  is  :  Has  this  Government  a  right  to  impose  burdens  on 
the  capital  and  industry  of  one  portion  of  the  country,  not 
with  a  view  to  revenue,  but  to  benefit  another, £  And  I  must 
be  permitted  to  say  that,  after  the  long  and  deep  agitation 
of  this  controversy,  it  is  with  surprise  that  I  perceive  so 
strong  a  disposition  to  misrepresent  its  real  character.  To 
correct  the  impression  which  those  misrepresentations  are  cal- 
culated to  make,  I  will  dwell  on  the  point  under  consider- 
ation for  a  few  moments  longer. 

The  Federal  Government  has,  by  an  express  provision  of 
the  constitution,  the  right  to  lay  on  imports.  The  State 
has  never  denied  or  resisted  this  right,  nor  even  thought  of  so 
doing.  The  Government  has,  however,  not  been  contented 
with  exercising  this  power  as  she  had  a  right  to  do,  but  has 
gone  a  step  beyond  it,  by  laying  imposts,  not  for  revenue,  but 
protection.  This  the  State  considers  as  an  unconstitutional 
exercise  of  power-*-highly  injurious  and  oppressive  to  her  and 
the  other  staple  States,  and  has,  accordingly,  met  it  with  the 


SPEECHES.  199 

most  determined  resistance.  I  do  not  intend  to  enter,  at 
this  time,  into  the  argument  as  to  the  unconstitutionally  of 
the  protective  system.  It  is  not  necessary.  It  is  sufficient 
that  the  power  is  nowhere  granted;  and  that,  from  the 
journals  of  the  Convention  which  formed  the  constitution,  it 
would  seem  that  it  was  refused.  In  support  of  the  journals, 
I  might  cite  the  statement  of  Luther  Martin,  which  has  al- 
ready been  referred  to,  to  show  that  the  Convention,  so  far 
from  conferring  the  power  on  the  Federal  Government,  left 
to  the  State  the  right  to  impose  duties  on  imports,  with  the 
express  view  of  enabling  the  several  States  to  protect  their 
own  manufactures..;  Notwithstanding  this,  Congress  has  as- 
sumed, without  any  warrant  from  the  constitution,  the  right 
of  exercising  this  most  important  power ;  and  has  so  exer- 
cised it  as  to  impose  a  ruinous  burden  on  the  labor  and  capi- 
tal of  the  State,  by  which  her  resources  are  exhausted — the 
enjoyments  of  her  citizens  curtailed — the  means  of  education 
contracted — and  all  her  interests  essentially  and  injuriously 
affected.  We  have  been  sneeringly  told  that  she  is  a  small 
State  ;  that  her  population  does  not  much  exceed  half  a 
million  of  souls  ;  and  that  more  than  one-half  are  not  of 
the  European  race.  The  facts  are  so.  I  know  she  never  can 
be  a  great  State,  and  that  the  only  distinction  to  which  she 
can  aspire  must  be  based  on  the  moral  and  intellectual  ac- 
quirements of  her  sons.  To  the  development  of  these  much 
of  her  attention  has  been  directed  ;  but  this  restrictive  sys- 
tem, which  has  so  unjustly  exacted  the  proceeds  of  her  labor, 
to  be  bestowed  on  other  sections,  has  so  impaired  her  re- 
sources, that,  if  not  speedily  arrested,  it  will  dry  up  the 
means  of  education,  and  with  it,  deprive  her  of  the  only 
source  through  which  she  can  aspire  to  distinction. 

There  is  another  misstatement,  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
controversy,  so  frequently  made  in  debate,  and  so  well  calcu- 
lated to  mislead,  that  I  feel  bound  to  notice  it.  It  has  been 
said  that  South  Carolina  claims  the  right  to  annul  the  con- 


200  SPEECHES. 

stitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States ;  and  to  rebut  this 
supposed  claim,  the^  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Rives) 
has  gravely  quoted  the  constitution,  to  prove  that  the  con- 
stitution, and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  are  the 
supreme  laws  of  the  land — as  if  the  State  claimed  the  right 
to  act  contrary  to  this  provision  of  the  constitution.  No- 
thing can  be  more  erroneous  :  her  object  is  not  to  resist 
laws  made  in  pursuance  of  the  constitution,  but  those  made 
without  its  authority,  and  which  encroached  on  her  reserved 
powers.  She  claims  not  even  the  right  of  judging  of  the  de- 
legated powers,  but  of  those  that  are  reserved  ;  and  to  resist 
the  former,  when  they  encroach  upon  the  lattev  I  will 
pause  to  illustrate  this  important  point. 

All  must  admit  that  there  are  delegated  and  reserved 
powers,  and  that  the  powers  reserved  are  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively.  The  powers,  then,  of  the  system  are 
divided  between  the  General  and  the  State  Governments ; 
and  the  point  immediately  under  consideration  is,  whether 
a  State  has  any  right  to  judge  as  to  the  extent  of  its  reserved 
powers,  and  to  defend  them  against  the  encroachments  of 
the  General  Government.  Without  going  deeply  into  this 
point  at  this  stage  of  the  argument,  or  looking  into  the 
nature  and  origin  of  the  Government,  there  is  a  simple  view 
of  the  subject  which  I  consider  as  conclusive.  The  very  idea 
of  a  divided  power  implies  the  right  on  the  part  of  the  State 
for  which  I  contend.  The  expression  is  metaphorical  when 
applied  to  power.  Every  one  readily  understands  that  the 
division  of  matter  consists  in  the  separation  of  the  parts. 
But  in  this  sense  it  is  not  applicable  to  power.  {  What,  then, 
is  meant  by  a  division  of  power  ?/ I  cannot  conceive  of  a 
division,  without  giving  an  equM  right  to  each  to  judge  of 
the  extent  of  the  power  allotted  to  each.  Such  right  I  hold 
to  be  essential  to  the  existence  of  a  division  ;  and  that,  to 
give  to  either  party  the  conclusive  right  of  judging,  not  only 
of  the  share  allotted  to  it,  but  of  that  allotted  to  the  other, 


SPEECHES.  201 

is  to  annul  the  division,  and  to  confer  the  whole  power  on  the 
party  vested  with  such  right. 

But  it  is  contended  that  the  constitution  has  conferred 
on  the  Supreme  Court  the  right  of  judging  between  the 
States  and  the  General  Government.  Those  who  make  this 
objection,  overlook,  I  conceive,  an  important  provision  of  the 
constitution.  By  turning  to  the  10th  amended  article,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  reservation  of  power  to  the  States  is  not 
only  against  the  powers,  delegated  to  Congress,  but  against 
the  United  States  themselves  ;  and  extends,  of  course,  as 
well  to  the  judiciary  as  to  the  other  departments  of  the 
Government.  The  article  provides,  that  all  powers  not  de- 
legated to  the  United  States,  or  prohibited  by  it  to  the 
States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  peo- 
ple. This  presents  the  inquiry,  What  powers  are  delegated 
to  the  United  States  ?  They  may  be  classed  under  four 
divisions :  first,  those  that  are  delegated  by  the  States  to 
each  other,  by  virtue  of  which  the  constitution  may  be  alter- 
ed or  amended  by  three-fourths  of  the  States,  when,  without 
which,  it  would  have  required  the  unanimous  vote  of  all ; 
next,  the  powers  conferred  on  Congress  ;  then  those  on  the 
President ;  and  finally,  those  on  the  judicial  department — 
all  of  which  are  particularly  enumerated  in  the  parts  of  the 
constitution  which  organize  the  respective  departments. 
The  reservation  of  powers  to  the  States  is,  as  I  have  said, 
against  the  whole  ;  and  is  as  full  against  the  judicial  as  it 
is  against  the  executive  and  legislative  departments  of  the 
Government.  It  cannot  be  claimed  for  the  one  without 
claiming  it  for  the  whole,  and  without,  in  fact,  annulling  this 
important  provision  of  the  constitution. 

Against  this,  as  it  appears  to  me,  conclusive  view  of  the 
subject,  it  has  been  urged  that  this  power  is  expressly  con- 
ferred on  the  Supreme  Court  by  that  portion  of  the  constitu- 
tion which  provides  that  the  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all 
cases  in  law  and  equity  arising  under  the  constitution,  the 


202  SPEECHES. 

laws  of  the  United  States,  and  treaties  made  under  their  au- 
thority. I  believe  the  assertion  to  be  utterly  destitute  of  any 
foundation./lt  obviously  is  the  intention  of  the  constitution 
simply  to  make  the  judicial  power  commensurate  with  the 
law-making  and  treaty-making  powers  ;  and  to  vest  it  with 
the  right  of  applying  the  constitution,  the  laws,  and  the 
treaties,  to  the  cases  which  might  arise  under  them  ;  and  not 
to  make  it  the  judge  of  the  constitution,  the  laws,  and  the 
treaties  themselves.  In  fact,  the  power  of  applying  the  laws 
to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  deciding  upon  such  application, 
constitutes,  in  truth,  the  judicial  power. /The  distinction 
between  such  power,  and  that  of  judging  of  the  laws,  will 
be  perfectly  apparent  when  we  advert  to  what  is  the  acknow- 
ledged power  of  the  court  in  reference  to  treaties  or  compacts 
between  sovereigns.  /It  is  perfectly  established,  that  the 
courts  have  no  right  to  judge  of  the  violation  of  treaties ; 
and  that,  in  reference  to  them,  their  power  is  limited  to  the 
right  of  judging  simply  of  the  violation  of  rights  under  them  ; 
and  that  the  right  of  judging  of  infractions  belongs  exclu- 
sively to  the  parties  themselves,  and  not  to  the  courts :  of 
which  we  have  an  example  in  the  French  treaty,  which  was 
declared  by  Congress  null  and  void,  in  consequence  of  its  vi- 
olation by  the  Government  of  France.  Without  such  de- 
claration, had  a  French  citizen  sued  a  citizen  of  this  country 
under  the  treaty,  the  court  could  have  taken  no  cognizance 
of  its  infraction ;  nor,  after  such  a  declaration,  would  it  have 
heard  any  argument  or  proof  going  to  show  that  the  treaty 
had  not  been  violated. 

The  declaration,  of  itself,  is  conclusive  on  the  court.  But 
it  will  be  asked  how  the  court  obtained  the  power  to  pro- 
nounce a  law  or  treaty  unconstitutional,  when  it  comes  in 
conflict  with  that  instrument.  I  do  not  deny  that  it  pos- 
sesses the  right ;  but  I  can  by  no  means  concede  that  it  was 
derived  from  the  constitution.  It  had  its  origin  in  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  case.  Where  there  are  two  or  more  rules  es- 


SPEECHES.  203 

tablished,  one  from  a  higher,  the  other  from  a  lower  author- 
ity, which  may  come  into  conflict  in  applying  them  to  a  par- 
ticular case,  the  judge  cannot  avoid  pronouncing  in  favor  of 
the  superior  against  the  inferior.  It  is  from  this  necessity, 
and  this  alone,  that  the  power  which  is  now  set  up  to  over- 
rule the  rights  of  the  States  against  an  express  provision  of 
the  constitution  was  derived.  It  had  no  other  origin.  That 
I  have  traced  it  to  its  true  source,  will  be  manifest  from  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  power  which,  so  far  from  being  conferred  ex- 
clusively on  the  Supreme  Court,  as  is  insisted,  belongs  to 
every  court — inferior  and  superior — State  and  General — and 
even  to  foreign  courts. 

But  the  senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clayton)  relies  on 
the  journals  of  the  Convention  to  prove  that  it  was  the  in- 
tention of  that  body  to  confer  on  the  Supreme  Court  the 
right  of  deciding,  in  the  last  resort,  between  a  State  and  the 
General  Government.  I  will  not  follow  him  through  the 
journals,  as  I  do  not  deem  that  to  be  necessary  to  refute  his 
argument.  It  is  sufficient  for  this  purpose  to  state,  that  Mr. 
Kutledge  reported  a  resolution,  providing  expressly  that  the 
United  States  and  the  States  might  be  parties  before  the 
Supreme  Court.  If  this  proposition  had  been  adopted,  I 
would  ask  the  senator  whether  this  very  controversy  between 
the  United  States  and  South  Carolina  might  not  have  been 
brought  before  the  court  ?  I  would  also  ask  him  whether  it 
can  be  brought  before  the  court  as  the  constitution  now 
stands  ?  If  he  answers  the  former  in  the  affirmative,  and 
the  latter  in  the  negative,  as  he  must,  then  it  is  clear,  his 
elaborate  argument  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  that  the 
report  of  Mr.  Rutledge  was  not,  in  substance,  adopted  as  he 
contended ;  and  that  the  journals,  so  far  from  supporting, 
are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  position  which  he  attempts  to 
maintain.  I  might  push  the  argument  much  farther  against 
the  power  of  the  court,  but  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary,  at 
least  in  this  stage  of  the  discussion.  If  the  views  which 


204  SPEECHES. 

have  already  been  presented  be  correct,  and  I  do  not  see  how 
they  can  be  resisted,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  the 
reserved  powers  were  reserved  equally  against  every  depart- 
ment of  the  Government,  and  as  strongly  against  the  judicial 
as  against  the  other  departments,  and,  of  course,  weie  left 
under  the  exclusive  will  of  the  States. 

There  still  remains  another  misrepresentation  of  the  con- 
duct of  the  State,  which  has  been  made  with  the  view  of  excit- 
ing odium.  I  allude  to  the  charge,  that  South  Carolina  sup- 
ported the  tariff  of  1816,  and  is,  therefore,  responsible  foi 
the  protective  system./  To  determine  the  truth  of  this 
charge,  it  becomes  necessary  to  ascertain  the  real  character 
of  that  law — whether  it  was  a  tariff  for  revenue  or  for  pro- 
tection— and,  as  involved  in  this,  to  inquire,  What  was  the 
condition  of  the  country  at  the  period  ?  The  late  war  with 
Great  Britain  had  just  terminated,  which,  with  the  restric- 
tive system  that  preceded  it,  had  diverted  a  large  amount 
of  capital  and  industry  from  commerce  to  manufacturers, 
particularly  to  the  cotton  and  woollen  branches.  There  was 
a  debt,  at  the  same  time,  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  millions 
of  dollars  hanging  over  the  country,  and  the  heavy  war  duties 
were  still  in  existence.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  ques- 
tion was  presented,  as  to  what  point  the  duties  ought  to  be 
reduced  ?  This  question  involved  another — at  what  time 
the  debt  ought  to  be  paid  ?  which  was  a  question  of  policy, 
involving  in  its  consideration  all  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  then  condition  of  the  country.  Among  the  most 
prominent  arguments  in  favor  of  an  early  discharge  of  the 
debt  was,  that  the  high  duties  which  it  would  require  to  ef- 
fect it  would  have,  at  the  same  time,  the  effect  of  sustaining 
the  infant  manufactures,  which  had  been  forced  up  under  the 
circumstances  to  which  I  have  adverted.  This  view  of  the 
subject  had  a  decided  influence  in  determining  in  favor  of  an 
early  payment  of  the  debt.  The  sinking  fund  was,  accord- 
ingly, raised  from  seven  to  ten  millions  of  dollars,  with  the 


SPEECHES.  205 

provision  to  apply  the  surplus  which  might  remain  in  the 
treasury  as  a  contingent  appropriation  to  that  fund  ;  and  the 
duties  were  graduated  to  meet  this  increased  expenditure. 
It  was  thus  that  the  policy  and  justice  of  protecting  the 
large  amount  of  capital  and  industry  which  had  been  diverted 
by  the  measures  of  the  Government  into  new  channels,  as  I 
have  stated,  was  combined  with  the  fiscal  action  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  which,  while  it  secured  a  prompt  payment  of 
the  debt,  prevented  the  immense  losses  to  the  manufacturers 
which  would  have  followed  a  sudden  and  great  reduction. 
Still,  revenue  was  the  main  object,  and  protection  but  the 
incidental.  The  bill  to  reduce  the  duties  was  reported  by  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  and  not  of  Manufactures, 
and  it  proposed  a  heavy  reduction  on  the  then  existing  rate 
of  duties.  But  what  of  itself,  without  other  evidence,  is  de- 
cisive as  to  the  character  of  the  bill,  is  the  fact  that  it  fixed 
a  much  higher  rate  of  duties  on  the  unprotected  than  on  the 
protected  articles.  I  will  enumerate  a  few  leading  articles 
only.  Woollen  and  cotton  above  the  value  of  25  cents  on 
the  square  yard,  though  they  were  the  leading  objects  of  pro- 
tection, were  subject  to  a  permanent  duty  of  only  20  per  cent. 
Iron,  another  leading  article  among  the  protected,  had  a  pro- 
tection of  not  more  than  9  per  cent,  as  fixed  by  the  act,  and 
of  but  fifteen  as  reported  in  the  bill.  These  rates  were  all 
below  the  average  duties  as  fixed  in  the  act,  including 
the  protected,  the  unprotected,  and  even  the  free  articles.  I 
have  entered  into  some  calculation,  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
average  rate  of  duties  under  the  act.  There  is  some  uncer- 
tainty in  the  data,  but  I  feel  assured  that  it  is  not  less  than 
thirty  per  cent,  ad  valorem  :  showing  an  excess  of  the  ave- 
rage duties  above  that  imposed  on  the  protected  articles 
enumerated  of  more  than  10  per  cent.,  and  thus  clearly  es- 
tablishing the  character  of  the  measure — that  it  was  for 
revenue,  and  not  protection. 

Looking  back,  even  at  this  distant  period,  with  all  our 


206  SPEECHES. 

experience,  I  perceive  but  two  errors  in  the  act :  the  one  in 
reference  to  iron,  and  the  other  the  minimum  duty  on  coarse 
cottons.  As  to  the  former,  I  conceive  that  the  bill,  as  re- 
ported, proposed  a  duty  relatively  too  low,  which  was  still 
farther  reduced  in  its  passage  through  Congress.  The  duty, 
at  first,  was  fixed  at  seventy-five  cents  the  hundredweight ; 
but,  in  the  last  stage  of  its  passage,  it  was  reduced,  by  a  sort 
of  caprice,  occasioned  by  an  unfortunate  motion,  to  forty-five 
cents.  This  injustice  was  severely  felt  in  Pennsylvania,  the 
State,  above  all  others,  most  productive  of  iron ;  and  was  the 
principal  cause  of  that  great  reaction  which  has  since  thrown 
her  so  decidedly  on  the  side  of  the  protective  policy.  The 
other  error  was  that  as  to  coarse  cottons,  on  which  the  duty 
was  as  much  too  high  as  that  on  iron  was  too  low.  It  intro- 
\  duced,  besides,  the  obnoxious  minimum  principle,  which  has 
1  since  been  so  mischievously  extended  ;  and  to  that  extent,  I 
am  constrained  in  candor  to  acknowledge,  as  I  wish  to  dis- 
j  guise  nothing,  the  protective  principle  was  recognized  by  the 
act  of  1816.  How  this  was  overlooked  at  the  time,  it  is  not 
in  my  power  to  say.  It  escaped  my  observation,  which  I  can 
account  for  only  on  the  ground  that  the  principle  was  then 
new,  and  that  my  attention  was  engaged  by  another  impor- 
tant subject — the  question  of  the  currency,  then  so  urgent, 
and  with  which,  as  chairmam  of  the  committee,  I  was  par- 
ticularly charged.  With  these  exceptions,  I  again  repeatf  I 
see  nothing  in  the  bill  to  condemn  ;  yet  it  is  on  the  ground 
that  the  members  from  the  State  voted  for  the  bill,  that  the 
attempt  is  now  made  to  hold  up  Carolina  as  responsible  for 
the  whole  system  of  protection  which  has  since  followed, 
though  she  has  resisted  its  progress  in  every  stage.  Was 
there  ever  greater  injustice  ?/  And  how  is  it  to  be  accounted 
for,  but  &s  forming  a  part  01  that  systematic  misrepresenta- 
tion and  calumny  which  has  been  directed  for  so  many  years, 
without  interruption,  against  that  gallant  and  generous 
State  ?  /  And  why  has  she  thus  been  assailed  ?  Merely  be- 


SPEECHES.  207 

cause  she  abstained  from  taking  any  part  in  the  Presidential 
canvass — believing  that  it  had  degenerated  into  a  mere  sys- 
tem of  imposition  on  the  people — controlled,  almost  exclu- 
sively, by  those  whose  object  it  is  to  obtain  the  patronage  of 
the  Government,  and  that  without  regard  to  principle  or 
policy.  Standing  apart  from  what  she  considered  a  contest 
in  which  the  public  had  no  interest,  she  has  been  assailed  by 
both  parties  with  a  fury  altogether  unparalleled  ;  but  which, 
pursuing  the  course  which  she  believed  liberty  and  duty  re- 
quired, she  has  met  with  a  firmness  equal  to  the  fierceness 
of  the  assault.  In  the  midst  of  this  attack,  I  have  not  escaped. 
With  a  view'of  inflicting  a  wound  on  the  State  through  me, 
I  have  been  held  up  as  the  author  of  the  protective  system, 
and  one  of  its  most  strenuous  advocates.  It  is  with  pain 
that  I  allude  to  myself  on  so  deep  and  grave  a  subject  as  that 
now  under  discussion,  and  which,  I  sincerely  believe,  involves 
the  liberty  of  the  country.  I  now  regret  that,  under  the 
sense  of  injustice  which  the  remarks  of  a  senator  from  Penn- 
sylvania (Mr.  Wilkins)  excited  for  the  moment,  I  hastily 
gave  my  pledge  to  defend  myself  against  the  charge  which 
has  been  made  in  reference  to  my  course  in  1816  :  not  that 
there  will  be  any  difficulty  in  repelling  the  charge,  but  be- 
cause I  feel  a  deep  reluctance  in  turning  the  discussion,  in 
any  degree,  from  a  subject  of  so  much  magnitude  to  one  of 
so  little  importance  as  the  consistency  or  inconsistency  of  my- 
self, or  any  other  individual,  particularly  in  connection  with 
an  event  so  long  since  passed.  But  for  this  hasty  pledge, 
I  would  have  remained  silent  as  to  my  own  course  on  this 
occasion,  and  would  have  borne  with  patience  and  calm- 
ness this,  with  the  many  other  misrepresentations  with  which 
I  have  been  so  incessantly  assailed  for  so  many  years. 

The  charge  that  I  was  the  author  of  the  protective  sys- 
tem has  no  other  foundation  but  that  I,  in  common  with  the 
almost  entire  South,  gave  my  support  to  the  tariff  of  1816. 
It  is  true  that  I  advocated  that  measure,  for  which  I  may 


208  SPEECHES. 

rest  my  defence,  without  taking  any  other,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  a  tariff  for  revenue,  and  not  for  protection,  which 
I  have  established  beyond  the  power  of  controversy.  But 
my  speech  on  the  occasion  has  been  brought  in  judgment 
against  me  by  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania.  I  have  since 
cast  my  eyes  over  the  speech  ;  and  I  will  surprise,  I  have  no 
doubt,  the  senator,  by  telling  him  that,  with  the  exception 
of  some  hasty  and  unguarded  expressions,  I  retract  nothing 
I  uttered  on  that  occasion.  I  only  ask  that  I  may  be  judged, 
in  reference  to  it,  in  that  spirit  of  fairness  and  justice  which 
is  due  to  the  occasion  :  taking  into  consideration  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  was  delivered,  and  bearing  in  mind 
that  the  subject  was  a  tariff  for  revenue,  and  not  for  protec- 
tion ;  for  reducing,  and  not  raising  the  duties.  But,  before 
I  explain  the  then  condition  of  the  country,  from  which  my 
main  arguments  in  favor  of  the  measure  were  drawn,  it  is 
nothing  but  an  act  of  justice  to  myself  that  I  should  state  a 
fact  in  connection  with  my  speech,  that  is  necessary  to  ex- 
plain what  I  have  called  hasty  and  unguarded  expressions. 
My  speech  was  an  impromptu  ;  and,  as  such,  I  apologized  to 
the  House,  as  appears  from  the  speech  as  printed,  for  offering 
my  sentiments  on  the  question  without  having  duly  reflected 
on  the  subject.  It  was  delivered  at  the  request  of  a  friend, 
when  I  had  not  previously  the  least  intention  of  addressing 
the  House.  I  allude  to  Samuel  D.  Ingham,  then  and  now, 
as  I  am  proud  to  say,  a  personal  and  political  friend — a  man 
of  talents  and  integrity — with  a  clear  head,  and  firm  and 
patriotic  heart ;  then  among  the  leading  members  of  the 
House  ;  in  the  palmy  state  of  his  political  glory,  though  now 
for  a  moment  depressed  ; — depressed,  did  I  say  ?  no  !  it  is 
his  State  which  is  depressed — Pennsylvania,  and  not  Samuel 
D.  Ingham  !  Pennsylvania,  which  has  deserted  him  under 
circumstances  which,  instead  of  depressing,  ought  to  have 
elevated  him  in  her  estimation.  He  came  to  me,  when  sit- 
ting at  my  desk  writing,  and  said  that  the  House  was  falling 


SPEECHES.  209 

into  some  confusion,  accompanying  it  with  a  remark,  that  I 
knew  how  difficult  it  was  to  rally  so  large  a  body  when  once 
broken  on  a  tax  bill,  as  had  been  experienced  during  the  late 
war.  Having  a  higher  opinion  of  my  influence  than  it  de- 
served, he  requested  me  to  say  something  to  prevent  the 
confusion.  I  replied  that  I  was  at  a  loss  what  to  say  ;  that 
I  had  been  busily  engaged  on  the  currency,  which  was  then 
in  great  confusion,  and  which,  as  I  have  stated,  had  been 
placed  particularly  under  my  charge,  as  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  that  subject.  He  repeated  his  request,  and 
the  speech  which  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania  has  compli- 
mented so  highly  was  the  result. 

I  will  ask  whether  the  facts  stated  ought  not,  in  justice, 
to  be  borne  in  mind  by  those  who  would  hold  me  accounta- 
ble, not  only  for  the  general  scope  of  the  speech,  but  for 
every  word  and  sentence  which  it  contains  ?  But,  in  asking 
this  question,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  repudiate  the  speech. 
All  I  ask  is,  that  I  may  be  judged  by  the  rules  which,  in 
justice,  belong  to  the  case.  Let  it  be  recollected  that  the 
bill  was  a  revenue  bill,  and,  of  course,  that  it  was  constitu- 
tional. I  need  not  remind  the  Senate  that,  when  the  meas- 
ure is  constitutional,  all  arguments  calculated  to  show  its 
beneficial  operation  may  be  legitimately  pressed  into  service, 
without  taking  into  consideration  whether  the  subject  to 
which  the  arguments  refer  be  within  the  sphere  of  the  con- 
stitution or  not.  If,  for  instance,  a  question  were  before  this 
body  to  lay  a  duty  on  Bibles,  and  a  motion  were  made  to  re- 
duce the  duty,  or  admit  Bibles  duty  free,  who  could  doubt 
that  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  motion — that  the  increased 
circulation  of  the  Bible  would  be  in  favor  of  the  morality 
and  religion  of  the  country,  would  be  strictly  proper  ?  But 
who  would  suppose  that  he  who  adduced  it  had  committed 
himself  on  the  constitutionality  of  taking  the  religion  or 
morals  of  the  country  under  the  charge  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment ?  Again  :  suppose  the  question  to  be,  to  raise  the 

VOL.   II. — 14 


210  SPEECHES. 

duty  on  silk,  or  any  other  article  of  luxury ;  and  that  it  should 
be  supported  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an  article  mainly  con- 
sumed by  the  rich  and  extravagant — could  it  be  fairly  inferred 
that  in  the  opinion  of  the  speaker,  Congress  had  a  right  to  pass 
sumptuary  laws  ?  I  only  ask  that  these  plain  rules  may  be 
applied  to  my  argument  on  the  tariff  of  1816.  They  turn 
almost  entirely  on  the  benefits  which  manufactures  conferred 
on  the  country  in  time  of  war,  and  which  no  one  could  doubt. 
The  country  had  recently  passed  through  such  a  state.  The 
world  was  at  that  time  deeply  agitated  by  the  effects  of  the 
great  conflict  which  had  so  long  raged  in  Europe,  and  which 
no  one  could  tell  how  soon  again  might  return.  Bonaparte 
had  but  recently  been  overthrown  ;  the  whole  southern  part 
of  this  continent  was  in  a  state  of  revolution,  and  threat- 
ened with  the  interference  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  which,  had  it 
occurred,  must  almost  necessarily  have  involved  this  country  in 
a  most  dangerous  conflict.  It  was  under  these  circumstances 
that  I  deli vered  the  speech,  in  which  I  urged  the  House  that, 
in  the  adjustment  of  the  tariff,  reference  ought  to  be  had  to  a 
state  of  war  as  well  as  peace,  and  that  its  provisions  ought  to 
be  fixed  on  the  compound  views  of  the  two  periods — making 
some  sacrifice  in  peace,  in  order  that  less  might  be  made  in 
war.  Was  this  principle  false  ?  and,  in  urging  it,  did  I  com- 
mit myself  to  that  system  of  oppression  since  grown  up,  and 
which  has  for  its  object  the  enriching  of  one  portion  of  the 
country  at  the  expense  of  the  other  ? 

The  plain  rule  in  all  such  cases  is,  that  when  a  measure 
is  proposed,  the  first  thing  is  to  ascertain  its  constitutionality; 
and,  that  being  ascertained,  the  next  is  its  expediency ; 
which  last  opens  the  whole  field  of  argument  for  and  against. 
Every  topic  may  be  urged  calculated  to  prove  it  wise  or 
unwise  :  so  in  a  bill  to  raise  imposts.  It  must  first  be  ascer- 
tained that  the  bill  is  based  on  the  principles  of  revenue, 
and  that  the  money  raised  is  necessary  for  the  wants  of  the 
country.  These  being  ascertained,  every  argument,  direct 


SPEECHES.  211 

and  indirect,  may  be  fairly  offered,  which  may  go  to  show 
that,  under  all  the  circumstances,  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
are  proper  or  improper.  Had  this  plain  and  simple  rule  been 
adhered  to,  we  should  never  have  heard  of  the  complaint  of 
Carolina.  Her  objection  is  not  against  the  improper  modi- 
fication of  a  bill  acknowledged  to  be  for  revenue,  but  that, 
under  the  name  of  imposts,  a  power  essentially  different  from 
the  taxing  power  is  exercised — partaking  much  more  of  the 
character  of  a  penalty  than  a  tax.  Nothing  is  more  common 
than  that  things  closely  resembling  in  appearance  should 
widely  and  essentially  differ  in  their  character.  Arsenic,  for 
instance,  resembles  flour,  yet  one  is  a  deadly  poison,  and  the 
other  that  which  constitutes  the  staff  of  life.  So  duties  im- 
posed, whether  for  revenue  or  protection,  may  be  called 
imposts  ;  though  nominally  and  apparently  the  same,  yet 
they  differ  essentially  in  their  real  character. 

I  shall  now  return  to  my  speech  on  the  tariff  of  1816. 
To  determine  what  my  opinions  really  were  on  the  subject  of 
protection  at  that  time,  it  will  be  proper  to  advert  to  my 
sentiments  before  and  after  that  period.  My  sentiments  pre- 
ceding 1816,  on  this  subject,  are  a  matter  of  record.  I  came 
into  Congress  in  1812,  a  devoted  friend  and  supporter  of 
the  then  administration  ;  yet  one  of  my  first  efforts  was  to 
brave  the  administration,  by  opposing  its  favorite  measure, 
the  restrictive  system — embargo,  non-intercourse,  and  all — 
and  that  upon  the  principle  of  free  trade.  The  system  re- 
mained in  fashion  for  a  time ;  but,  after  the  overthrow  of 
Bonaparte,  I  reported  a  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  to  repeal  the  whole  system  of  restrictive  measures. 
While  the  bill  was  under  consideration,  a  worthy  man,  then 
a  member  of  the  House  (Mr.  M'Kim  of  Baltimore),  moved 
to  except  the  Non-Importation  Act,  which  he  supported  on 
the  ground  of  encouragement  to  manufactures.  I  resisted 
the  motion  on  the  very  grounds  on  which  Mr.  M'Kim  sup- 
ported it.  I  maintained  that  the  manufacturers  were  then 


212  SPEECHES. 

receiving  too  much  protection,  and  warned  its  friends  that 
the  withdrawal  of  the  protection  which  the  war  and  the  high 
duties  then  afforded  would  cause  great  embarrassment ;  and 
that  the  true  policy,  in  the  mean  time,  was  to  admit  foreign 
goods  as  freely  as  possible,  in  order  to  diminish  the  antici- 
pated embarrassment  on  the  return  of  peace  ;  intimating,  at 
the  same  time,  my  desire  to  see  the  tariff  revised,  with  a 
view  of  affording  a  moderate  and  permanent  protection. 

Such  was  my  conduct  before  1816.  Shortly  after  that 
period  I  left  Congress,  and  had  no  opportunity  of  making 
known  my  sentiments  in  reference  to  the  protective  system, 
which  shortly  after  began  to  be  agitated.  But  I  have  the 
most  conclusive  evidence  that  I  considered  the  arrangement 
of  the  revenue,  in  1816,  as  growing  out  of  the  necessity  of 
the  case,  and  due  to  the  consideration  of  justice.  But,  even 
at  that  early  period,  I  was  not  without  my  fears  that  even 
that  arrangement  would  lead  to  abuse  and  future  difficulties. 
I  regret  that  I  have  been  compelled  to  dwell  so  long  on  my- 
self; but  trust  that,  whatever  censure  may  be  incurred,  will 
not  be  directed  against  me,  but  against  those  who  have 
drawn  my  conduct  into  the  controversy  ;  and  who  may  hope, 
by  assailing  my  motives,  to  wound  the  cause  with  which  I  am 
proud  to  be  identified. 

I  may  add,  that  all  the  Southern  States  voted  with  South 
Carolina  in  support  of  the  bill :  not  that  they  had  any  in- 
terest in  manufactures,  but  on  the  ground  that  they  had 
supported  the  war,  and,  of  course,  felt  a  corresponding  ob- 
ligation to  sustain  those  establishments  which  had  grown  up 
under  the  encouragement  it  had  incidentally  afforded ;  whilst 
most  of  the  New  England  members  were  opposed  to  the 
measure  principally,  as  I  believe,  on  opposite  principles. 

I  have  now,  I  trust,  satisfactorily  repelled  the  charge 
against  the  State,  and  myself  personally,  in  reference  to  the 
tariff  of  1816.  Whatever  support  the  State  has  given  the 
bill,  originated  in  the  most  disinterested  motives.  There  was 


SPEECHES.  213 

not  within  the  limits  of  the  State,  so  far  as  my  memory  serves 
me,  a  single  cotton  or  woollen  establishment.  Her  whole 
dependence  was  on  agriculture,  and  the  cultivation  of  two 
great  staples,  rice  and  cotton.  Her  obvious  policy  was  to 
keep  open  the  market  of  the  world  unchecked  and  unrestrict- 
ed ; — to  buy  cheap,  and  to  sell  high  :  but  from  a  feeling  of 
kindness,  combined  with  a  sense  of  justice,  she  added  her 
support  to  the  bill.  We  had  been  told  by  the  agents  of  the 
manufacturers  that  the  protection  which  the  measure  afforded 
would  be  sufficient ;  to  which  we  the  more  readily  conceded, 
as  it  was  considered  a  final  adjustment  of  the  question. 

Let  us  now  turn  our  eyes  forward,  and  see  what  has  been 
the  conduct  of  the  parties  to  this  arrangement.  Have  Caro- 
lina and  the  South  disturbed  this  adjustment  •?  No  ;  they 
have  never  raised  their  voice  in  a  single  instance  against  it, 
even  though  this  measure,  moderate,  comparatively,  as  it  is, 
was  felt  with  no  inconsiderable  pressure  on  their  interests. 
Was  this  example  imitated  on  the  opposite  side  ?  Far 
otherwise.  Scarcely  had  the  President  signed  his  name, 
before  application  was  made  for  an  increase  of  duties,  which 
was  repeated,  with  demands  continually  growing,  till  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  1828.  What  course  now,  I  would  ask, 
did  it  become  Carolina  to  pursue  in  reference  to  these  de- 
mands ?  Instead  of  acquiescing  in  them,  because  she  had 
acted  generously  in  adjusting  the  tariff  of  1816,  she  saw,  in 
her  generosity  on  that  occasion,  additional  motives  for  that 
firm  and  decided  resistance  which  she  has  since  made  against 
the  system  of  protection.  She  accordingly  commenced  a 
systematic  opposition  to  all  further  encroachments,  which  con- 
tinued from  1818  till  1828  ;  by  discussions  and  by  resolu- 
tions, by  remonstrances  and  by  protests  through  her  legis- 
lature. These  all  proved  insufficient  to  stem  the  current  of 
encroachment :  but,  notwithstanding  the  heavy  pressure  on 
her  industry,  she  never  despaired  of  relief  till  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  1828 — that  bill  of  abominations — engendered  by 


214  SPEECHES. 

avarice  and  political  intrigue.  Its  adoption  opened  the  eyes 
of  the  State,  and  gave  a  new  character  to  the  controversy. 
Till  then,  the  question  had  been,  whether  the  protective 
system  was  constitutional  and  expedient ;  but,  after  that, 
she  no  longer  considered  the  question  whether  the  right  of 
regulating  the  industry  of  the  States  was  a  reserved  or  dele- 
gated power,  but  what  right  a  State  possesses  to  defend  her 
reserved  powers  against  the  encroachments  of  the  Federal 
Government :  a  question  on  the  decision  of  which  the  value 
of  all  the  reserved  powers  depends.  The  passage  of  the  act 
of  1828,  with  all  its  objectionable  features,  and  under  the 
circumstances  connected  with  it,  almost,  if  not  entirely, 
closed  the  door  of  hope  through  the  General  Government. 
It  afforded  conclusive  evidence  that  no  reasonable  prospect 
of  relief  from  Congress  could  be  entertained ;  yet,  the  near 
approach  of  the  period  of  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  and 
the  elevation  of  General  Jackson  to  the  Presidency,  still 
afforded  a  ray  of  hope — not  so  strong,  however,  as  to  prevent 
the  State  from  turning  her  eyes  for  final  relief  to  her  reserved 
powers. 

Under  these  circumstances  commenced  that  inquiry  into 
the  nature  and  extent  of  the^reserved  powers  of  a  State,  and 
the  means  which  they  afford  of  resistance  against  the  en- 
croachments of  the  General  Government,  which  has  been 
pursued  with  so  much  zeal  and  energy,  and,  I  may  add,  in- 
telligence. Never  was  there  a  political  discussion  carried  on 
with  greater  activity,  and  which  appealed  more  directly  to 
the  intelligence  of  a  community.  Throughout  the  whole,  no 
address  has  been  made  to  the  low  and  vulgar  passions  ;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  the  discussion  has  turned  upon  the  higher 
principles  of  political  economy,  connected  with  the  operations 
of  the  tariff  system,  calculated  to  show  its  real  bearing  on 
the  interests  of  the  State,  and  on  the  structure  of  our  polit- 
ical system  ;  and  to  show  the  true  character  of  the  relations 
between  the  State  and  the  General  Government,  and  the 


'! 


SPEECHES.  215 

means  which  the  States  possess  of  defending  those  powers 
which  they  reserved  in  forming  the  Federal  Government. 

In  this  great  canvass,  men  of  the  most  commanding 
talents  and  acquirements  have  engaged  with  the  greatest 
ardor ;  and  the  people  have  been  addressed  through  every 
channel — by  essays  in  the  public  press,  and  by  speeches  in 
their  public  assemblies — until  they  have  become  thoroughly 
instructed  on  the  nature  of  the  oppression,  and  on  the  rights 
which  they  possess,  under  the  constitution,  to  throw  it  off. 

If  gentlemen  suppose  that  the  stand  taken  by  the  people 
of  Carolina  rests  on  passion  and  delusion,  they  are  wholly 
mistaken.  The  case  is  far  otherwise.  No  community,  from 
the  legislator  to  the  ploughman,  were  ever  better  instructed 
in  their  rights ;  and  the  resistance  on  which  the  State  has 
resolved,  is  the  result  of  mature  reflection,  accompanied  with 
a  deep  conviction  that  their  rights  have  been  violated,  and 
that  the  means  of  redress  which  they  have  adopted  are  con- 
sistent with  the  principles  of  the  constitution. 

But  while  this  active  canvass  was  carried  on,  which  looked 
to  the  reserved  powers  as  the  final  means  of  redress  if  all 
others  failed,  the  State  at  the  same  tune  cherished  a  hope,  as 
I  have  already  stated,  that  the  election  of  General  Jackson 
to  the  presidency  would  prevent  the  necessity  of  a  resort  to 
extremities.  He  was  identified  with  the  interests  of  the 
staple  States  ;  and,  having  the  same  interest,  it  was  believed 
that  his  great  popularity — a  popularity  of  the  strongest 
character,  as  it  rested  on  military  services — would  enable  him, 
as  they  hoped,  gradually  to  bring  down  the  system  of  pro- 
tection, without  shock  or  injury  to  any  interest.  Under  these 
views,  the  canvass  in  favor  of  General  Jackson's  election  to 
the  Presidency  was  carried  on  with  great  zeal,  in  conjunction 
with  that  active  inquiry  into  the  reserved  powers  of  the  States 
on  which  final  reliance  was  placed,  j  But  little  did  the  peoplei: 
of  Carolina  dream  that  the  man  whom  they  were  thus  striv- 
ing to  elevate  to  the  highest  seat  of  power  would  prove  so 


216  SPEECHES. 

utterly  false  to  all  their  hopes.  Man  is,  indeed,  ignorant  of 
the  future  ;  nor  was  there  ever  a  stronger  illustration  of  the 
observation  than  is  afforded  by  the  result  of  that  election  ! 
The  very  event  on  which  they  had  built  their  hopes  has  been 
turned  against  them  ;  and  the  very  individual  to  whom  they 
looked  as  a  deliverer,  and  whom,  under  that  impression,  they 
strove  for  so  many  years  to  elevate  to  power,  is  now  the  most 
powerful  instrument  in  the  hands  of  his  and  their  bitterest 
opponents  to  put  down  them  and  their  cause  ! 

Scarcely  had  he  been  elected,  when  it  became  apparent, 
from  the  organization  of  his  cabinet  and  other  indications, 
that  all  their  hopes  of  relief  through  him  were  blasted."]  The 
admission  of  a  single  individual  into  the  cabinet,  under  the 
circumstances  which  accompanied  that  admission,  threw  all 
into  confusion.  The  mischievous  influence  over  the  Presi- 
dent, through  which  this  individual  was  admitted  into  the 
cabinet,  soon  became  apparent.  Instead  of  turning  his  eyes 
forward  to  the  period  of  the  payment  of  the  public  debt, 
which  was  then  near  at  hand,  and  to  the  present  dangerous 
political  crisis,  which  was  inevitable  unless  averted  by  a 
timely  and  wise  system  of  measures,  the  attention  of  the 
President  was  absorbed  by  mere  party  arrangements,  and 
circumstances  too  disreputable  to  be  mentioned  here,  except 
by  the  most  distant  allusion. 

Here  I  must  pause  for  a  moment  to  repel  a  charge  which 
has  been  so  often  made,  and  which  even  the  President  has 
reiterated  in  his  proclamation — the  charge  that  I  have  been 
actuated,  in  the  part  which  I  have  taken,  by  feelings  of  dis- 
appointed ambition.  I  again  repeat,  that  I  deeply  regret 
the  necessity  of  noticing  myself  in  so  important  a  discussion  ; 
and  that  nothing  can  induce  me  to  advert  to  my  own  course 
but  the  conviction  that  it  is  due  to  the  cause,  at  which  a  blow 
is  aimed  through  me.  It  is  only  in  this  view  that  I  no- 
tice it. 

It  illy  became  the  chief  magistrate  to  make  this  charge. 


SPEECHES.  217 

The  course  which  the  State  took,  and  which  led  to  the 
present  controversy  between  her  and  the  General  Government, 
was  taken  as  far  back  as  1828 — in  the  very  midst  of  that 
severe  canvass  which  placed  him  in  power — and  in  that  very 
canvass  Carolina  openly  avowed  and  zealously  maintained 
those  very  principles  which  he,  the  chief  magistrate,  now 
officially  pronounces  to  be  treason  and  rebellion.  That  was 
the  period  at  which  he  ought  to  have  spoken.  Having 
remained  silent  then,  and  having,  under  his  approval,  im- 
plied by  that  silence,  received  the  support  and  the  vote  of 
the  State,  I,  if  a  sense  of  decorum  did  not  prevent  it,  might 
recriminate  with  the  double  charge  of  deception  and  ingrati- 
tude. My  object,  however,  is  not  to  assail  the  President,  but 
to  defend  myself  against  a  most  unfounded  charge.  The 
tune  alone  when  that  course  was  taken,  on  which  this  charge 
of  disappointed  ambition  is  founded,  will  of  itself  repel  it,  in 
the  eye  of  every  unprejudiced  and  honest  man.  The  doc- 
trine which  I  now  sustain,  under  the  present  difficulties,  I 
openly  avowed  and  maintained  immediately  after  the  act  of 
1828,  that  "bill  of  abominations,"  as  it  has  been  so  often 
and  properly  termed.  Was  I,  at  that  period,  disappointed 
in  any  views  of  ambition  which  I  might  be  supposed  to  enter- 
tain ?  I  was  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  elected  by 
an  overwhelming  majority.  I  was  a  candidate  for  re-election 
on  the  ticket  with  General  Jackson  himself,  with  a  certain 
prospect  of  the  triumphant  success  of  that  ticket,  and  with 
a  fair  prospect  of  the  highest  office  to  which  an  American 
citizen  can  aspire.  What  was  my  course  under  these  pros- 
pects ?  Did  I  look  to  my  own  advancement,  or  to  an  honest 
and  faithful  discharge  of  my  duty  ?  Let  facts  speak  for 
themselves.  When  the  bill  to  which  I  have  referred  came 
from  the  other  House  to  the  Senate,  the  almost  universal 
impression  was,  that  its  fate  would  depend  upon  my  casting 
vote.  It  was  known  that,  as  the  bill  then  stood,  the  Senate 
was  nearly  equally  divided ;  and  as  it  was  a  combined 


218  SPEECHES. 

measure,  originating  with  the  politicians  and  manufacturers, 
and  intended  as  much  to  bear  upon  the  Presidential  election 
as  to  protect  manufactures,  it  was  believed  that,  as  a  stroke 
of  political  policy,  its  fate  would  be  made  to  depend  on  my 
vote,  in  order  to  defeat  General  Jackson's  election,  as  well  as 
my  own.  The  friends  of  General  Jackson  were  alarmed,  and 
I  was  earnestly  entreated  to  leave  the  chair  in  order  to  avoid 
the  responsibility,  under  the  plausible  argument  that,  if  the 
Senate  should  be  equally  divided,  the  bill  would  be  lost 
without  the  aid  of  my  casting  vote.  The  reply  to  this  en- 
treaty was,  that  no  consideration  personal  to  myself  could 
induce  me  to  take  such  a  course ;  that  I  considered  the 
measure  as  of  the  most  dangerous  character,  and  calculated 
to  produce  the  most  fearful  crisis  ;  that  the  payment  of  the 
public  debt  was  just  at  hand  ;  and  that  the  great  increase 
of  revenue  which  it  would  pour  into  the  treasury  would  ac- 
celerate the  approach  of  that  period,  and  that  the  country 
would  be  placed  in  the  most  trying  of  situations — with  an 
immense  revenue  without  the  means  of  absorption  upon  any 
legitimate  or  constitutional  object  of  appropriation,  and  com- 
pelled to  submit  to  all  the  corrupting  consequences  of  a  large 
surplus,  or  to  make  a  sudden  reduction  of  the  rates  of  duties, 
which  would  prove  ruinous  to  the  very  interests  which  were 
then  forcing  the  passage  of  the  bill.  Under  these  views  I 
determined  to  remain  in  the  chair,  and  if  the  bill  came  to  me, 
to  give  my  casting  vote  against  it,  and  in  doing  so,  to  give  my 
reasons  at  large  ;  but  at  the  same  time  I  informed  my  friends 
that  I  would  retire  from  the  ticket,  so  that  the  election  of 
General  Jackson  might  not  be  embarrassed  by  any  act  of 
mine.  Sir,  I  was  amazed  at  the  folly  and  infatuation  of  that 
period.  So  completely  absorbed  was  Congress  in  the  game  of 
ambition  and  avarice — from  the  double  impulse  of  the  manu- 
facturers and  politicians — that  none  but  a  few  appeared  to 
anticipate  the  present  crisis,  at  which  all  are  now  alarmed, 
but  which  is  the  inevitable  result  of  what  was  then  done. 


SPEECHES.  219 

As  to  myself,  I  clearly  foresaw  what  has  since  followed.  The 
road  of  ambition  lay  open  before  me — I  had  but  to  follow  the 
corrupt  tendency  of  the  times — but  I  chose  to  tread  the 
rugged  path  of  duty. 

It  was  thus  that  the  reasonable  hope  of  relief  through  the 
election  of  General  Jackson  was  blasted  ;  but  still  one  other 
hope  remained,  that  the  final  discharge  of  the  public  debt — 
an  event  near  at  hand — would  remove  our  burden.  That 
event  would  leave  in  the  treasury  a  large  surplus  :  a  surplus 
that  could  not  be  expended  under  the  most  extravagant 
schemes  of  appropriation,  having  the  least  color  of  decency 
or  constitutionality.  That  event  at  last  arrived.  At  the 
last  session  of  Congress,  it  was  avowed  on  all  sides  that  the 
public  debt,  as  to  all  practical  purposes,  was  in  fact  paid,  the 
small  surplus  remaining  being  nearly  covered  by  the  money 
in  the  treasury  and  the  bonds  for  duties  which  had  already 
accrued  ;  but  with  the  arrival  of  this  event  our  last  hope  was 
doomed  to  be  disappointed.  After  a  long  session  of  many 
months,  and  the  most  earnest  effort  on  the  part  of  South 
Carolina  and  the  other  Southern  States  to  obtain  relief,  all 
that  could  be  effected  was  a  small  reduction  in  the  amount 
of  the  duties  ;  but  a  reduction  of  such  a  character,  that, 
while  it  diminished  the  amount  of  burden,  distributed  that 
burden  more  unequally  than  even  the  obnoxious  act  of  1828  : 
reversing  the  principle  adopted  by  the  bill  of  1816,  of  laying 
higher  duties  on  the  unprotected  than  the  protected  articles, 
by  repealing  almost  entirely  the  duties  laid  upon  the  former, 
and  imposing  the  burden  almost  entirely  on  the  latter.  It 
was  thus  that,  instead  of  relief — instead  of  an  equal  distri- 
bution of  the  burdens  and  benefits  of  the  Government,  on  the 
payment  of  the  debt,  as  had  been  fondly  anticipated — the 
duties  were  so  arranged  as  to  be,  in  fact,  bounties  on  one  side 
and  taxation  on  the  other  ;  thus  placing  the  two  great  sec- 
tions of  the  country  in  direct  conflict  in  reference  to  its 
fiscal  action,  and  thereby  letting  in  that  flood  of  political 


220  SPEECHES. 

corruption  Which  threatens  to  sweep  away  our  constitution 
and  our  liberty. 

This  unequal  and  unjust  arrangement  was  pronounced, 
both  by  the  administration,  through  its  proper  organ,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  by  the  opposition,  to  be  a  per- 
manent adjustment  ;  and  it  was  thus  that  all  hope  of  relief 
through  the  action  of  the  General  Government  terminated  ; 
and  the  crisis  so  long  apprehended  at  length  arrived,  at  which 
the  State  was  compelled  to  choose  between  absolute  acquies- 
cence in  a  ruinous  system  of  oppression,  or  a  resort  to  her  re- 
served powers — powers  of  which  she  alone  was  the  rightful 
judge,  and  which  only,  in  this  momentous  juncture,  could 
save  her.  She  determined  on  the  latter. 

The  consent  of  two-thirds  of  her  legislature  was  necessa- 
ry for  the  call  of  a  convention,  which  was  considered  the 
only  legitimate  organ  through  which  the  people,  in  their  sov- 
ereignty, could  speak.  After  an  arduous  struggle  the  State 
Bights  party  succeeded :  more  than  two-thirds  of  both  branch- 
es of  the  legislature  favorable  to  a  convention  were  elected  ; 
a  convention  was  called — the  ordinance  adopted.  The  con- 
vention was  succeeded  by  a  meeting  of  the  legislature,  when 
the  laws  to  carry  the  ordinance  into  execution  were  enacted  : 
all  of  which  have  been  communicated  by  the  President,  have 
been  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  this 
bill  is  the  result  of  their  labor. 

Having  now  corrected  some  of  the  prominent  misrepre- 
sentations as  to  the  nature  of  this  controversy,  and  given  a 
rapid  sketch  of  the  movement  of  the  State  in  reference  to  it, 
I  will  next  proceed  to  notice  some  objections  connected  with 
the  ordinance  and  the  proceedings  under  it. 

The  first  and  most  prominent  of  these  is  directed  against 
what  is  called  the  test  oath,  which  an  effort  has  been  made 
to  render  odious.  So  far  from  deserving  the  denunciation 
which  has  been  levelled  against  it,  I  view  this  provision  of 
the  ordinance  as  but  the  natural  result  of  the  doctrines  en- 


SPEECHES.  221 

tertained  by  the  State,  and  the  position  which  she  occupies. 
The  people  of  Carolina  believe  that  the  Union  is  a  union  of 
States,  and  not  of  individuals  ;  that  it  was  formed  by  the 
States,  and  that  the  citizens  of  the  several  States  were  bound 
to  it  through  the  acts  of  their  several  States  ;  that  each 
State  ratified  the  constitution  for  itself,  and  that  it  was  only 
by  such  ratification  of  a  State  that  any  obligation  was  im- 
posed upon  its  citizens.  Thus  believing,  it  is  the  opinion  of 
the  people  of  Carolina  that  it  belongs  to  the  State  which  has 
imposed  the  obligation  to  declare,  in  the  last  resort,  the  ex- 
tent of  this  obligation,  as  far  as  her  citizens  are  concerned  ; 
and  this  upon  the  plain  principles  which  exist  in  all  analo- 
gous cases  of  compact  between  sovereign  bodies.  On  this 
principle,  the  people  of  the  State,  acting  in  their  sovereign 
capacity  in  convention,  precisely  as  they  did  in  the  adoption 
of  their  own  and  the  federal  constitution,  have  declared,  by 
the  ordinance,  that  the  acts  of  Congress  which  imposed  du- 
ties under  the  authority  to  lay  imposts,  are  acts,  not  for  rev- 
enue, as  intended  by  the  constitution,  but  for  protection,  and 
therefore  null  and  void.  The  ordinance  thus  enacted  by  the 
people  of  the  State  themselves,  acting  as  a  sovereign  commu- 
nity, is  as  obligatory  on  the  citizens  of  the  State  as  any  por- 
tion of  the  constitution.  In  prescribing,  then,  the  oath  to 
obey  the  ordinance,  no  more  was  done  than  to  prescribe  an 
oath  to  obey  the  constitution.  It  is,  in  fact,  but  a  particular 
oath  of  allegiance,  and  in  every  respect  similar  to  that  which 
is  prescribed,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  to 
be  administered  to  all  the  officers  of  the  State  and  Federal 
Governments  ;  and  is  no  more  deserving  the  harsh  and  bitter 
epithets  which  have  been  heaped  upon  it,  than  that,  or  any 
similar  oath.  It  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that,  according 
to  the  opinion  which  prevails  in  Carolina,  the  right  of  resist- 
ance to  the  unconstitutional  acts  of  Congress  belongs  to  the 
State,  and  not  to  her  individual  citizens  ;  and  that,  though 
the  latter  may,  in  a  mere  question  of  meum  and  tuum,  resist, 


222  SPEECHES. 

through  the  courts,  an  unconstitutional  encroachment  upon 
their  rights,  yet  the  final  stand  against  usurpation  rests  not 
with  them,  but  with  the  State  of  which  they  are  members  ; 
and  such  act  of  resistance  by  a  State  binds  the  conscience 
and  allegiance  of  the  citizen.  But  there  appears  to  be  a 
general  misapprehension  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  State 
has  acted  under  this  part  of  the  ordinance.  Instead  of  sweep- 
ing every  officer  by  a  general  proscription  of  the  minority,  as 
has  been  represented  in  debate,  as  far  as  my  knowledge  ex- 
tends, not  a  single  individual  has  been  removed.  The  State 
has,  in  fact,  acted  with  the  greatest  tenderness,  all  circum- 
stances considered,  towards  citizens  who  differed  from  the 
majority  ;  and,  in  that  spirit,  has  directed  the  oath  to  be 
administered  only  in  case  of  some  official  act  directed  to  be 
performed,  in  which  obedience  to  the  ordinance  is  involved.  A 
It  has  been  further  objected,  that  the  State  has  acted 
precipitately.  What !  precipitately  !  after  making  a  strenu- 
ous resistance  for  twelve  years — by  discussion  here  and  in 
the  other  House  of  Congress — by  essays  in  all  forms — by 
resolutions,  remonstrances,  and  protests  on  the  part  of  her 
legislature — and,  finally,  by  attempting  an  appeal  to  the 
judicial  power  of  the  United  States  ?  I  say  attempting,  for 
they  have  been  prevented  from  bringing  the  question  fairly 
before  the  court,  and  that  by  an  act  of  that  very  majority  in 
Congress  who  now  upbraid  them  for  not  making  that  ap- 
peal ;  of  that  majority  who,  on  a  motion  of  one  of  the  mem- 
bers in  the  other  House  from  South  Carolina,  refused  to  give 
to  the  act  of  1828  its  true  title — that  it  was  a  protective, 
and  not  a  revenue  act.  The  State  has  never,  it  is  true,  re- 
lied upon  that  tribunal,  the  Supreme  Court,  to  vindicate  its 
reserved  rights  ;  yet  they  have  always  considered  it  as  an 
auxiliary  means  of  defence,  of  which  they  would  gladly  have 
availed  themselves  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  protection, 
had  they  not  been  deprived  of  the  means  of  doing  so  by  the 
act  of  the  majority. 


SPEECHES.  223 

Notwithstanding  this  long  delay  of  more  than  ten  years, 
under  this  continued  encroachment  of  the  Government,  we 
now  hear  it  on  all  sides,  by  friends  and  foes,  gravely  pro- 
nounced that  the  State  has  acted  precipitately — that  her 
conduct  has  been  rash  !  /That  such  should  be  the  language 
of  an  interested  majority,  who,  by  means  of  this  unconstitu- 
tional and  oppressive  system,  are  annually  extorting  millions 
from  the  South,  to  be  bestowed  upon  other  sections,  is  not 
at  all  surprising.  Whatever  impedes  the  course  of  avarice 
and  ambition,  will  ever  be  denounced  as  rash  and  precipi- 
tate ;/and  had  South  Carolina  delayed  her  resistance  fifty 
instead  of  twelve  years,  she  would  have  heard  from  the  same 
quarter  the  same  language  ;  but  it  is  really  surprising,  that 
those  who  are  suffering  in  common  with  herself,  and  who 
have  complained  equally  loud  of  their  grievances  ;  who  have 
pronounced  the  very  acts  which  she  has  asserted  within  her 
limits  to  be  oppressive,  unconstitutional,  and  ruinous,  after 
so  long  a  struggle — a  struggle  longer  than  that  which  pre- 
ceded the  separation  of  these  States  from  the  mother-coun- 
try— longer  than  the  period  of  the  Trojan  war — should  now 
complain  of  precipitancy  !  No,  it  is  not  Carolina  which  has 
acted  precipitately ;  but  her  sister  States,  who  have  suffered 
in  common  with  her,  have  acted  tardily.  Had  they  acted  as 
she  has  done  ;  had  they  performed  their  duty  with  equal  en- 
ergy and  promptness,  our  situation  this  day  would  be  very 
different  from  what  we  now  find  \yf  Delays  are  said  to  be 
dangerous  ;  and  never  was  the  mAxim  more  true  than  in  the 
present  case,  a  case  of  monopoly.  It  is  the  very  nature  of 
monopolies  to  grow.  If  we  take  from  one  side  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  proceeds  of  its  labor,  and  give  it  to  the  other, 
the  side  from  which  we  take  must  constantly  decay,  and  that 
to  which  we  give  must  prosper  and  increase.  Such  is  the 
action  of  the  protective  system.  It  exacts  from  the  South 
a  large  portion  of  the  proceeds  of  its  industry,  which  it  be- 
stows upon  the  other  sections,  in  the  shape  of  bounties  to 


224  SPEECHES. 

manufactures,  and  appropriations  in  a  thousand  forms  /  pen- 
sions, improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors,  roads  and  canals, 
and  in  every  shape  that  wit  or  ingenuity  can  devise.  Can 
we,  then,  be  surprised  that  the  principle  of  monopoly  grows, 
when  it  is  so  amply  remunerated  at  the  expense  of  those  who 
support  it  ?  And  this  is  the  real  reason  of  the  fact  which 
we  witness,  that  all  acts  for  protection  pass  with  small  mi- 
norities, but  soon  come  to  be  sustained  by  great  and  over- 
whelming majorities.  Those  who  seek  the  monopoly  en- 
deavor to  obtain  it  in  the  most  exclusive  shape  ;  and  they 
take  care,  accordingly,  to  associate  only  a  sufficient  number 
of  interests  barely  to  pass  it  through  the  two  Houses  of  Con- 
gress, on  the  plain  principle,  that  the  greater  the  number 
from  whom  the  monopoly  takes,  and  the  fewer  on  whom  it 
bestows,  the  greater  is  the  advantage  to  the  monopolists. 
Acting  in  this  spirit,  we  have  often  seen  with  what  exact 
precision  they  count  :  adding  wool  to  woollens,  associating 
lead  and  iron,  feeling  their  way,  until  a  bare  majority  is  ob- 
tained, when  the  bill  passes,  connecting  just  as  many  inter- 
ests as  are  sufficient  to  ensure  its  success,  and  no  more.  In 
a  short  time,  however,  we  have  invariably  found  that  this 
lean  becomes  a  decided  majority,  under  the  certain  operation 
which  compels  individuals  to  desert  the  pursuits  which  the 
monopoly  has  rendered  unprofitable,  that  they  may  partici- 
pate in  those  which  it  has  rendered  profitable.  It  is  against 
this  dangerous  and  growing  disease  that  South  Carolina  has 
acted — a  disease,  whose  cancerous  action  would  soon  have 
spread  to  every  part  of  the  system,  if  not  arrested. 

There  is  another  powerful  reason  why  the  action  of  the 
State  could  not  have  been  safely  delayed.  The  public  debt, 
as  I  have  already  stated,  for  all  practical  purposes,  has  already 
been  paid  ;  and,  under  the  existing  duties,  a  large  annual 
surplus  of  many  millions  must  come  into  the  treasury.  It  is 
impossible  to  look  at  this  state  of  things  without  seeing  the 
most  mischievous  consequences  ;  and,  among  others,  if  not 


SPEECHES.  225 

speedily  corrected,  it  would  interpose  powerful  and  almost  in- 
superable obstacles  to  throwing  off  the  burden  under  which 
the  South  has  been  so  long  laboring.  The  disposition  of  the 
surplus  would  become  a  subject  of  violent  and  corrupt  strug- 
gle, and  could  not  fail  to  rear  up  new  and  powerful  interests 
in  support  of  the  existing  system,  not  only  in  those  sections 
which  have  been  heretofore  benefited  by  it,  but  even  in  the 
South  itself.  I  cannot  but  trace  to  the  anticipation  of  this 
state  of  the  treasury  the  sudden  and  extraordinary  move- 
ments which  took  place  at  the  last  session  in  the  Virginia 
Legislature,  in  which  the  whole  South  is  vitally  interested.* 
It  is  impossible  for  any  rational  man  to  believe  that  that 
State  could  seriously  have  thought  of  effecting  the  scheme  to 
which  I  allude  by  her  own  resources,  without  powerful  aid 
from  the  General  Government. 

It  is  next  objected,  that  the  enforcing  acts  have  legislated 
the  United  States  out  of  South  Carolina.  I  have  already 
replied  to  this  objection  on  another  occasion,  and  will  now 
but  repeat  what  I  then  said  :  that  they  have  been  legislated 
out  only  to  the  extent  that  they  had  no  right  to  enter.  The 
constitution  has  admitted  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  within  the  limits  of  the  several  States  only  so  far  as 
the  delegated  powers  authorize  ;  beyond  that  they  are  in- 
truders, and  may  rightfully  be  expelled  ;  and  that  they  have 
been  efficiently  expelled  by  the  legislation  of  the  State 
through  her  civil  process,  as  has  been  acknowledged  on  all 
sides  in  the  debate,  is  only  a  confirmation  of  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine  for  which  the  majority  in  Carolina  have  con- 
tended. 

The  very  point  at  issue  between  the  two  parties  there  is, 
whether  nullification  is  a  peaceable  and  an  efficient  remedy 
against  an  unconstitutional  act  of  the  General  Government, 
and  may  be  asserted,  as  such,  through  the  State  tribunals. 

*  Having  for  their  object  the  emancipation  and  colonization  of  slaves. 

VOL.  II. — 15 


226  SPEECHES. 

Both  parties  agree  that  the  acts  against  which  it  is  directed 
are  unconstitutional  and  oppressive.  The  controversy  is  only 
as  to  the  means  by  which  our  citizens  may  be  protected 
against  the  acknowledged  encroachments  on  their  rights. 
This  being  the  point  at  issue  between  the  parties,  and  the 
very  object  of  the  majority  being  an  efficient  protection  of 
the  citizens  through  the  State  tribunals,  the  measures  adopt- 
ed to  enforce  the  ordinance,  of  course  received  the  most  deci- 
sive character.  We  were  not  children,  to  act  by  halves. 
Yet  for  acting  thus  efficiently  the  State  is  denounced,  and 
this  bill  reported,  to  overrule,  by  military  force,  the  civil  tri- 
bunals and  civil  process  of  the  State  !  /Sir,  I  consider  this 
bill,  and  the  arguments  which  have  been  urged  on  this  floor 
in  its  support,  as  the  most  triumphant  acknowledgment 
that  nullification  is  peaceful  and  efficient,  and  so  deeply  in- 
trenched in  the  principles  of  our  system,  that  it  cannot  be 
assailed  but  by  prostrating  the  constitution,  and  substituting 
the  supremacy  of  military  force  in  lieu  of  the  supremacy  of 
the  laws.  In  fact,  the  advocates  of  this  bill  refute  their  own 
argument.  They  tell  us  that  the  ordinance  is  unconstitu- 
tional ;  that  it  infracts  the  constitution  of  South  Carolina, 
although,  to  me,  the  objection  appears  absurd,  as  it  was 
adopted  by  the  very  authority  which  adopted  the-  constitu- 
tion itself.  They  also  tell  us  that  the  Supreme  Court,  is  the 
appointed  arbiter  of  all  controversies  between  a  State  and 
the  General  Government.  Why,  then,  do  they  not  leave 
this  controversy  to  that  tribunal  ?  Why  do  they  not  confide 
to  them  the  abrogation  of  the  ordinance,  and  the  laws  made 
in  pursuance  of  it,  and  the  assertion  of  that  supremacy  which 
they  claim  for  the  laws  of  Congress  ?  The  State  stands 
pledged  to  resist  no  process  of  the  court.  Why,  then,  confer 
on  the  President  the  extensive  and  unlimited  powers  provided 
in  this  bill  ?  Why  authorize  him  to  use  military  force  to 
arrest  the  civil  process  of  the  State  ?  But  one  answer  can 
be  given  :  That,  in  a  contest  between  the  State  and  the  Gen- 


SPEECHES.  227 

eral  Government,  if  the  resistance  be  limited  on  both  sides 
to  the  civil  process,  the  State,  by  its  inherent  sovereignty, 
standing  upon  its  reserved  powers^will  prcrwe  too  powerful  in 
such  a  controversy,  and  must  triumph  over  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, sustained  by  its  delegated  and  limited  authority  ; 
and  hi  this  answer  we  have  an  acknowledgment  of  the  truth 
of  those  great  principles  for  which  the  State  has  so  firmly 
and  nobly  contended. 

Having  made  these  remarks,  t^ie  great  question  is  now 
presented,  Has  Congress  the  right  to  pass  this  bill  ?  which 
I  will  next  proceed  to  consider.  The  decision  of  this  ques- 
tion involves  an  inquiry  into  the  provisions  of  the  bill. 


, 


What  are  they  ?     It  puts  at  the  disposal  of  the  President 

the  army  and  navy,  and  the  entire  militia  of  the  country  ;  it      ,    (-^^A 

enables  him,  at  his  pleasure,  to  subject  every  man  in  the    I  "^Uftfi 

United  States,  not  exempt  from  militia  duty,  to  martial  law  ;        fftl  r 

to  call  him  from  his  ordinary  occupation  to  the  field,  and  un- 

der the  penalty  of  fine  and  imprisonment,  inflicted  by  a 

court  martial,  to  imbrue  his  hand  in  his  brother's  blood. 

There  is  no  limitation  on  the  power  of  the  sword  ;  —  and  that 

over  the  purse  is  equally  without  restraint  ;  for  among  the 

extraordinary  features  of  tjie  bill,  it  contains  no  appropria- 

tion, which,  under  existing  circumstances,  is  tantamount  to 

an  unlimited  appropriation.     The  President  may,  under  its 

authority,  incur  any  expenditure,  and  pledge  the  national 

faith  to  meet  it.     He  may  create  a  new  national  debt,  at  the 

very  moment  'of  the  termination  of  the  former-^a  debt  of 

millions,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  labor  of  that 

section  of  the  country  whose  dearest  constitutional*  rights 

this  bill  prostrates  !  Thus  exhibiting  the  extraordinary  spec- 

tacle, that  the  very  section  of  the  country  which  is  urging 

this  measure,  and  carrying  the  sword  of  devastation  against 

us,  is,  at  the  same  tune,  .incurring  a  new  clebt,  to  be  paid 

by  those  whose  rights  are  violated  ;  while  those  who  violate 


228  SPEECHES. 

them  are  to  receive  the  benefits,  in  the  shape  of  bounties  and 
expenditures. 

And  for  wha,t  purpose  is  the  unlimited  control  of  the 
purse  and  of  the  sword  thus  placed  at  the  disposition  of  the 
Executive  ?  To  make  war  against  one  of  the  free  and  sov- 
ereign members  of  this  confederation,  which  the  bill  proposes 
to 'deal  with,  not  as  a  State,  but  as  a  collection  of  banditti  or 
outlaws.  Thus  exhibiting  the  impious  spectacle  of  this  Gov- 
ernment, the  creature  of  the  States,  making  war  against  the 
power  to  which  it  owes  its  existence. 

The  bill  violates  the  constitution,  plainly  and  palpably, 
in  many  of  its  provisions,  ^^authorizing  the  President  at 
his  pleasure,  to  place  the  different  ports  of  this  Union  on  an 
unequal  footing,  contrary  to  that  provision  of  ihe>  constitu- 
tion which  declares  that  no  preference  shall  be  give%to  one 
port  over  another.  It  also  violates  the  constitutiblt'lby  au- 
thorizing him,  at  his  discretion,  to  impose  cash  duties  on  one 
port,  while  credit  is  allowed  in  others^Jy  enabling  the  Pres- 
ident to  regulate  commerce,  a  power  vested  in  Congress 
alone  ;  and  by  drawing  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  Courts,  powers  never  intended  to  be  conferred  on  then)/ 
As  great  as  these  objections  are,  they  become  insignificant  in 
the  provisions  of  a  bill  which,  by  a  single  blow — by  treating 
the  States  as  a  mere  lawless  mass  of  individuals — prostrates 
all  the  barriers  of  the  constitution.  I  will  pass  over  the  mi- 
nor considerations,  and  proceed  directly  to  the  great  point. 
This  bill  proceeds  on  the  ground  that  the  entire  sovereignty 
of  this  country  belongs  to  the  American  people,  as  forming 
one  great  community,  and  regards  the  States  as  mere  frac- 
tions or  counties,  and  not  as  integral  parts  of  the  Union  ; 
having  no  more  right  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  the  Gov- 
ernment than  a  county  has  to  resist  the  authority  of  a  State  ; 
and  treating  such  resistance  as  the  lawless  acts  of  so  many 
individuals,  without  possessing  sovereignty  or  political  rights, 
i  J  It  has  been  said  that  the  bill  declares  war  against  South  Car- 


SPEECHES.  229 

olina.  No.  It  decrees  a  massacre  of  her  citizens  !  War 
has  something  ennobling  about  it,  and,  with  all  its  horrors, 
brings  into  action  the  highest  qualities,  intellectual  and 
moral.  It  was,  perhaps,  in  the  order  <of  Providence  that  it 
should  be  permitted  for  that  very  purpose.  But  this  bill  de- 
clares no  war,  except,  indeed,  it  be  that  which  savages  wage 
— a  war,  not  against  the  community,  but  the  citizens  of 
whom  that  community  is  composed.  But  I  regard  it  as 
worse  than  savage  warfare— as  an  attempt  to  take  away  life 
under  the  color  of  law,  without  the  trial  by  jury,  or  any  other 
safeguard  which  the  constitution  has  thrown  around  the  life 
of  the  citizen  !  It  authorizes  the  President,  or  even  his  de- 
puties, when  they  may  suppose  the  law  to  be  violated,  with- 
out the  intervention  of  a  court  or  jury,  to  kill  without  mercy 
or  discrimination ! 

It  has  been  said  by  the  senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr. 
Grundy)  to  be  a  measure  of  peace  !     Yes,  such  peace  as  the 
wolf  gives  to  the  lamb — the  kite  to  the  dove  !     Such  peace 
as  Russia  gives  to  Poland,  or  death  to  its  victim  !     A  peace, 
by  extinguishing  the  political  existence  of  the  State,  by  aw- 
ing her  into  an  abandonment  of  the  exercise  oJLevery  power 
which  constitutes  her  a  sovereign  communitj^lt  is  to  South 
Carolina  a  question  of  self-preservation  ;  and  I  proclaim  it, 
that,  should  this  bill  pass,  and  an  attempt  be  made  to  en-    IJMJ&  •* 
force  it,  it  will  be  resisted,  at  every  hazard — even  that  of    ^a  0J& 
death  itself.     Death  is  not  the  greatest  calamity  :  there  are    Ufr*^° 
others  still  more  terrible  to  the  free  and  brave,  and  among  'o*^*°\  ^ 
them  may  be  placed  the  loss  of  liberty  and  honor.  There  are  _ 
thousands  of  her  brave  sons  who,  if  need  be,  are  prepared 
cheerfully  to  lay  down  their  lives  in  defence  of  the  State,  and 
the  great  principles  of  constitutional  liberty  for  which  she  is 
contending/;  God  forbid  that  this  should  become  necessary  ! 
It  never  can  be,  unless  this  Government  is  resolved  to  bring 
the  question  to  extremity,  when  her  gallant  sons  will  stand 
prepared  to  perform  the  last  duty — to  die  nobly. 


230  SPEECHES. 

/>  <*.c o  I  go  on  the  ground  that  this  constitntion  was  made  by 
States  ;  that  it  is  a  federal  union  of  the  States,  in  which 
several  States  'still  retain  their  sovereignty.  If  these  views 
be  correct,  I  have  not  characterized  the  bill  too  strongly ; 
and  the  question  is,  whether  they  be  or  be  not.  I  jaqll 
not  enter  into  the  discussion  of  this  question  now.  I  will 
rest  it,  for  the  present,  on  what  I  'have  said  on  the  intro- 
duction of  the  resolutions  now  on  the  table,  under  a  hope 
that  another  opportunity  will  be  Afforded  for  more  ample  dis- 
cussion. I  will,  for  the  present,  confine  my  remarks  to  the 
objections  which  have  been  raised  to  the*  views  which  I  pre- 
sented when  I  introduced  them.  The  authority  of  Luther 
Martin  has  been  adduced  by  the  Senator  from  Delaware,  to 
prove  that  the  citizens  of  a  State,  acting  under  the  author- 
ity of  a  State,  are  liable  to  be  punished  as  traitors  by  this 
government.  Eminent  as  Mr.  Martin  was  as  a  lawyer,  and 
high  as  his  authority  may  be  considered  on  a  legal  point, 
I  cannot  accept  it  in  determining  the  point  at  issue.  The 
attitude  which  he  occupied,  if  taken  into  view,  would  lessen, 
if  not  destroy,  the  weight  of  his  authority.  He  had  been 
violently  opposed  in  convention  to  the  constitution,  and  the 
very  letter  from  which  the  Senator  has  quoted  was  intended 
to  dissuade  Maryland  from  its  adoption.  With  this  view,  it 
was  to  be  expected  ^that  every  consideration  calculated  to  ef- 
fect that  object  should  be  urged ;  that  real  objections  should 
be  exaggerated ;  and  that  those  having  no  foundation,  ex- 
cept mere  plausible  deductions,  should  be  presented.  It  is 
to  this  spirit  that  I  attribute  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Martin  in 
reference  to  the  point  under  consideration.  But  if  his  au-' 
thority  be  good  on  one  point,  it  must  be  admitted  to  be 
equally  so  on  another.  If  his  opinion  be  sufficient  te  prove 
that  a  citizen  of  a  •  State  may  be  punished  as  a  traitor  when 
acting  under  allegiance  to  the  State,  it  is  also  sufficient  to 
show  that  no  authority  was  intended  to  be  given  in  the  con- 
etitution  for  the  protection  of  manufactures  by  the  General 


SPEECHES.  .  231 

Government,  and  that  the  provision  in  the  constitution  per- 
mitting a  State  to  lay  an  impost  duty,  with  the  consent  of 
Congress,  was  intended  to  reserve  the  right  of  protection  to 
the  States  themselves,  and  that  each  State  should  protect  its 
own 'industry.  Assuming  his  opinion  to  be  of  equal  author- 
ity on  both  points,  how  embarrassing  would  be  the  attitude 
in  which  it  would  place  the  Senator  from  Delaware,  and  those 
with  whom  he  is  acting — that  of  using  the  sword  and  bayo- 
net to  enforce  the  execution,  of  an  unconstitutional  act  of 
Congress.  I  must  express  my  surprise  that  the  slightest  au- 
thority in  favor  of  power  should  be  received  as  the  most 
conclusive  evidence,  while  that  which  is,  at  least,  equally 
strong  in  favor  of  right  and  liberty,  is  wholly  overlooked  or 
rejected. 

Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  I  may  say  that 
neither  the  Senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clayton),  nor  any 
other  who  has  spoken  on  the  same  side,  has  directly  and 
fairly  met  the  great  question  at  issue :  Is  this  a  federal 
union  ?  a  union  'of  States,  as  distinct  from  that  of  indivi- 
duals ?  Is  the  sovereignty  in  the  several  States,  or  in  the 
American  people  in  the  aggregate  ?  The_jery-  language 
which  we  are  compelled  to  use  when  speaking  of  our  poli- 
tical institutions,  affords  proof  conclusive  as  to  its  real  cha- 
rafiier,.  T^he  terms  union,  federal,  united,  all  imply  a 
combination  of  sovereignties,  a,  confederation  of  States.  They 
are  never  applied  to  an  association  of  individuals. '-"Who 
ever  heard  of  the  United  State  of  New- York,  of  Massachu- 
setts, or  of  Virginia  ?  Who  ever  heard  the  term  federal  or 
union  applied  to  "the  aggregation  of  individuals  into  one 
community  ?  Nor  is  the  other  point  less  clear — that  the 
sovereignty  is  in  the  several  States,  and  that  our  system  is 
a  union  of  twenty-four  sovereign  powers,  under  a  constitu- 
tional compact,  and  jiot  of  a  divided  sovereignty  between 
the  States  severally  and  the  United  States.  }  In  spite  of  all 
that  has  been  said,  I  maintain  that  sovereignty7  is  In~lts 


232  SPEECHES. 

nature  indivisible.  It  is  the  supreme  power  in  a  State,  and 
we  might  just  as  well  speak  of  half  a  square,  or  half  of 
a  triangle,  as  of  half  a  sovereignty.  It  is  a  gross  error  to 
confound  the  exercise  of  sovereign  powers  with  sovereignty 
itself,  or  the  delegation  of  such  powers  with  the  surrender  of 
them.  A  sovereign  may  delegate  his  powers  to  be  exercised 
by  as  many  agents  as  he  may  think  proper,  under  such  con- 
ditions and  with  such  limitations  as  he  may  impose  ;  but  to 
surrender  any  portion  of  his  sovereignty  to  another  is  to 
annihilate  the  whole.  The  Senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clay- 
ton) calls  this  metaphysical  reasoning,  which  he  says  he 
cannot  comprehend.  If  by  metaphysics  he  means  that 
scholastic  refinement  which  makes  distinctions  without  dif- 
ference, no  one  can  hold  it  in  more  utter  contempt  than  I 
do  ;  but  if,  on  the  contrary,  he  means  the  power  of  analysis 
and  combination — that  power  which  reduces  the  most  com- 
plex idea  into  its  elements,  which  traces  causes  to  their  first 
principle,  and,  by  the  power  of  generalization  and  com- 
bination, unites  the  whole  in  one  harmonious  system — then,  so 
far  from  deserving  contempt,  it  is  the  highest  attribute  of 
the  human  mind.  It  is  the  power  which  raises  man  above 
the  brute — which  distinguishes  his  faculties  from  mere  saga- 
city, which  he  holds  in  common  with  inferior  animals.  It 
is  this  power  which  has  raised  the  astronomer  from  being  a 
mere  gazer  at  the  stars  to  the  high  intellectual  eminence  of 
a  Newton  or  a  Laplace,  and  astronomy  itself  from  a  mere 
observation  of  insulated  facts  into  that  noble  science  which 
displays  to  our  admiration  the  system  of  the  universe. 
And  shall  this  high  power  of  the  mind,  which  has  effected 
such  wonders  when  directed  to  the  laws  which  control  the 
material  world,  be  for  ever  prohibited,  under  a  senseless  cry 
of  metaphysics,  from  being  applied  to  the  high  purpose  of 
political  science  and  legislation  ?  I  hold  them  to  be  subject 
to  laws  as  fixed  as  matter  itself,  and  to  be  as  fit  a  subject 
for  the  application  of  the  highest  intellectual  power.  Denun- 


SPEECHES.  23S 

ciation  may,  indeed,  fall  upon  the  philosophical  inquirer 
into  these  first  principles,  as  it  did  upon  Galileo  and  Bacon 
when  they  first  nnfolded  the  great  discoveries  which  have 
immortalized  their  names  ;  but  the  tune  will  come  when 
truth  will  prevail  in  spite  of  prejudice  and  denunciation,  and 
when  politics  and  legislation  will  be  considered  as  much  a 
science  as  astronomy  and  chemistry. 

In  connection  with  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  understood 
the  Senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Rives)  to  say  that  sove- 
reignty was  divided,  and  that  a  portion  remained  with  the 
States  severally,  and  that  the  residue  was  vested  in  the 
Union.  By  Union,  I  suppose  the  Senator  meant  the  United 
States.  If  such  be  his  meaning — if  he  intended  to  affirm 
that  the  sovereignty  was  in  the  twenty-four  States,  in  what- 

r  light  he  may  view  them,  our  opinions  will  not  disagree  ; 

t  according  to  my  conception,  the  whole  sovereignty  is  in 
the  several  States,  while  the  exercise  of  sovereign  powers  is 
divided — ajpart  being  exercised  under  compact,  through  this 
General  Government,  and  the  residue  through  the  separate 
State  Governments.  But  if  the  Senator  from  Virginia  (Mr. 
Rives)  means  to  assert  that  the  twenty-four  States  form  but 
one  community,  with  a  single  sovereign  power  as  to  the 
objects  of  the  Union,  it  will  be  but  the  revival  of  the.  old 
question,  of  whether  the  Union  is  a  union  between  States, 
as  distinct  communities,  or  a  mere  aggregate  of  the  Ameri- 
can people,  as  a  mass  of  individuals  ;  and  in  this  light  his 
opinions  would  lead  directly  to  consolidation: 

But  to  return  to  the  bill.  It  is  said  mat  the  bill  ought 
to  pass,  because  the  law  must  be  enforced.  The  law_must 
be  enforced  !  The  imperial  edict  must  be  executed/  It  is 
under  such  sophistry,  couched  in  general  terms,  without 
looking  to  the  limitations  which  must  ever  exist  in  the  prac- 
tical exercise  of  power,  that  the  most  cruel  and  despotic 
acts  ever  have  been  covered/  It  was  such  sophistry  as  this 
that  cast  Daniel  into  the  lion's  den,  and  the  three  Innocents 


234  SPEECHES. 

into  the  fiery  furnace.  /  Under  the  same  sophistry  the  bloody 
edicts  of  Nero  and  Caligula  were  executed?:  The  law  must 
be  enforced.  Yes,  the  act  imposing  the  "  tea-tax  must  be 
executed/'  y/This  was  the  very  argument  which  impelled 
Lord  North  and  his  administration  to  that  mad  career  which 
for  ever  separated  us  from  the  British  crown/  Under  a 
similar  sophistry,  "  that  religion  must  be  protected,"  how 
many  massacres  have  been  perpetrated .?  and  how  many 
martyrs  have  been  tied  to  the  stake  ?/What  !  acting  on 
this  vague  abstraction,  are  you  prepared  to  enforce  a  law 
without  considering  whether  it  be  just  or  unjust,  constitu- 
tional or  unconstitutional  ?  Will  you  collect  money  when 
it  is  acknowledged  that  it  is  not  wanted  ?  He  who  earns 
the  money,  who  digs  it  from  the  earth  with  the  sweat  of  his 
brow,  has  a  just  title  to  it  against  the  universe.  No  one  has 
a  right  to  touch  it  without  his  consent  except  his  govern- 
ment, and  this  only  to  the  extent  of  its  legitimate  wants-; 
to  take  more  is  robbery?  and  you  propose  by  this  bill  to 
enforce  robbery  by  murdery/Yes :  to  this  result  you  must 
come,  by  this  miserable  sophistry,  this  vague  abstraction  of 
enforcing  the  law,  without  a  regard  to  the  fact  whether  the 
law  ye  just  or  unjust,  constitutional  or  unconstitutional. 

[n  the  same  spirit,  we  are  told  that  the  Union  must  be 
^served,  without  regard  to  the  means.  And  how  is  it  pro- 
posed to  preserve  the  Union  ?  By  force  !  Does  any  man 
in  his  senses  believe  that  this  beautiful  structure — this  har- 
monious aggregate  of  States,  produced  by  the  joint  consent 
of  all — can  -be  preserved  by  force  ?  Its  very  introduction 
will  be  certain  destruction  to  this  Federal  Union.  No,  no. 
You  cannot  keep  the  States  united  in  their  constitutional 
"and  federal  bonds  by  force..'  'Force  may,  indeed,  hold  the 
parts  together,  but  such  union  would  be  the  bond  between 
master  and  slave — a  union  of  exaction  on  one  side  and  of 
unqualified  obedience  on  the  other.  \  That  obedience  which, 
we  are  told  by  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Wilkins), 


SPEECHES.  235 

is  the  Union  !  [  Yes,  exaction  on  the  side  of  the  master  ; ' 
for  this  very  bill  is  intended  to  collect  what  can  be  no  longer  ^ 
called  taxes — the  voluntary  contribution  of  a  free  people — 
but  tribute — -tribute  to  be  collected  under  the  mouths  of  the 
cannon !/  Your  custom-house  is  already  transferred  to  a 
garrison,  and  that  garrison  with  its  batteries  turned,  not 
against  the  enemy  of  your  country,  but  on  subjects  (I  will 
not  say  citizens),  on  whom  you  propose  to  levy  contributions. 
Has  reason  fled-  from  our  borders  ?  Have  we  ceased  to 
reflect  ?  It  is  madness  to  suppose  that  the  Union  can  be 
preserved  by  force/  I  tell  you  plainly,  that  the  bill,  should 
it  pass,  cannot  be  enforced.  It  will  prove  only  a  blot  upon 
your  statute-book,  a  reproach  to  the  year,  and  a  disgrace  to 
the  American  Senate.  I  repeat,  it  will  not  be  executed  ;  it 
will  rousethe  dormant  spirit  of  the  people,  and  open  their  eyes 
to  the  approach  of  despotism.  The  country  has  sunk  into 
avarice  and  political  corruption,  "from  wnjch  nothing  can 
arouse,  it  buT  some  measure,  on  the  part  of  the  Government, 
of  folly"  and  madness,  such  as  that  now  under  consideration. 
^/Disguise  it  as  you  may,  the  controversy  is  one  between 
^Xpower  and  liberty ;  and  I  tell  the  gentlemen  who  are  opposed 
to  me,  that,  as  strong  as  may  be  the  love  of  power  on  their 
side,  the  love  of  liberty  is  still  stronger  en  ours.  History 
furnishes  many  instances  of  similar  struggles,  where  the  love 
of  liberty  has  prevailed  against  power  under  every  disadvan- 
tage, and  among  them  few  more  striking  than  that  of  our 
own  Revolution  ;  where,  as  strong  as  was  the  parent  country, 
and  feeble  as  were  the  colonies,  yet,  under  the  impulse  of 
liberty,  and  the  blessing  of  God,  they  gloriously  triumphed 
in  the  contest.  There  are,  indeed,  many  and  striking  analo- 
gies between  that  and  the  present  controversy.  They  both 
originated  substantially  in  the  same  cause — with  this  dif- 
ierencer— in  the  present  case,  the  power  of  taxation  is  con- 
verted into  that  of  regulating '  industry ;  in  the  other,  the 
power  of  regulating  industry,  by  the  regulation  of  commerce, 


236  SPEECHES. 

was  attempted  to  be  converted  into  the  power  of  taxation. 
Were  I  to  trace  the  analogy  further,  we  should  find  that  the 
perversion  of  the  taxing  power,  in  the  one  case,  has  given 
precisely  the  same  control  to  the  Northern  section  over  the 
industry  of  the  Southern  section  of  the  Union,  which  the 
power  to  regulate  commerce  gave  to  Great  Britain  over  the 
industry  of  the  colonies  in  the  other  ;  and  that  the  very 
articles  in  which  the  colonies  were  permitted  to  have  a  free 
trade,  and  those  in  which  the  mother-country  had  a  monop- 
oly, are  almost  identically  the  same  as  those  in  which  the 
Southern  States  are  permitted  to  have  a  free  trade  by  the 
act  of  1832,  and  in  which  the  Northern  States  have,  by  the 
same  act, 'secured  a  monopoly.  The  only  difference  is  in  the 
means.  In  the  former,  the  colonies  were  permitted  to  have 
a  free  trade  with  all  countries  south  of  Cape  Finisterre,  a 
cape  in  the  northern  part  of  Spain  ;  while  north  of  that, 
the  trade  of  the  colonies  was  prohibited,  except  through  the 
mother-country,  by  means  of  her  commercial  regulations. 
If  we  compare  the  products  of  the  country  north  and  south 
of  Cape  Finisterre,  we  shall  find  them  almost  identical  with 
the  list  of  the  protected  and  unprotected  articles  contained 
in  the  act  of  last  year.  Nor  does  the  analogy  terminate 
here.  The  very  arguments  resorted  to  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  American  Revolution,  and  the  measures  adopted, 
and  the  motives  assigned  to  bring  on  that  contest  (to  enforce 
the  law),  are  almost  identically  the  same. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression  to'  the  consideration 
of  the  bill.  Whatever  difference  of  opinion  may  exist  upon 
other  points,  there  is  one  on  which  I  should  suppose  there 
can  be  none  :  that  this  bill  rests  on  principles  which,  if  car- 
ried out,  will  ride  over  State  sovereignties,  and  that  it  will 
be  idle  for  any  of  its  advocates  hereafter  to  talk  of  State 
rights.  The  Senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Eives)  says  that 
he  is  the  advocate  of  State  rights  ;  but  he  must  permit  me 
to  tell  him  that,  although  ne  may  differ  in  premises  from 


SPEECHES.  237 

the  other  gentlemen  with  whom  he  acts  on  this  occasion,  yet, 
in  supporting  this  bill,  he  obliterates  every  vestige  of  dis- 
tinction between  him  and  them,  saving  only  that,  professing 
the  principles  of  '98,  his  example  will  be  more  pernicious 
than  that  of  the  most  open  and  bitter  opponents  of  the  rights 
of  the  States.  I  will  also  add,  what  I  am  compelled  to  say, 
that  I  must  consider  him  (Mr.  Eives)  as  less  consistent  than 
our  old  opponents,  whose  conclusions  were  fairly  drawn  from 
their  premises,  while  his  premises  ought  to  have  led  him  to 
opposite  conclusions.  The  gentleman  has  told  us  that  the 
new-fangled  doctrines,  as  he  chooses  to  call  them,  have 
brought  State  rights  into  disrepute.  I  must  tell  him,  in 
reply,  that  what  he  calls  new-fangled  are  but  the  doctrines 
of  '98  ;  and  that  it  is  he  (Mr.  Eives),  and  others  with  him, 
who,  professing  these  doctrines,  have  degraded  them  by  ex- 
plaining away  their  meaning  and  efficacy.  He  (Mr.  E.)  has 
disclaimed,  in  behalf  of  Virginia,  the  authorship  of  nullifi- 
cation. I  will  not  dispute  that  point.  If  Virginia  chooses 
to  throw  away  one  of  her  brightest  ornaments,  she  must  not 
hereafter  complain  that  it  has  become  the  property  of 
another.  But  while  I  have,  as  a  representative  of  Carolina, 
no  right  to  complain  of  the  disavowal  of  the  Senator  from 
Virginia,  I  must  believe  that  he  (Mr.  E.)  has  done  his  native 
State  great  injustice  by  declaring  on  this  floor,  that  when 
she  gravely  resolved,  in  '98,  that  "  in  cases  of  deliberate  and 
dangerous  infractions  of  the  constitution,  the  States,  as  par- 
ties to  the  compact,  have  the  right,  and  are  in  duty  bound, 
to  interpose  to  arrest  the  progress  of  the  evil,  and  to  main- 
tain withiii  their  respective  limits  the  authorities,  rights,  and 
liberties,  appertaining  to  them,"  she  meant  no  more  than  to 
proclaim  the  right  to  protest  and  to  remonstrate.  To  sup- 
pose that,  in  putting  forth  so  solemn  a  declaration,  which 
she  afterwards  sustained  by  so  able  and  elaborate  an  argu- 
ment, she  meant  no  more  than  to  assert  what  no  one  had 
ever  denied,  would  be  to  suppose  that  the  State  had  been 


238  SPEECHES. 

guilty  of  the  most  egregious  trifling  that  ever  was  exhibited 
on  so  solemn  an  occasion. 

<In  reviewing  the  ground,  over  which  I  have  passed,  it 
dll  be  apparent  that  the  question  in  controversy  involves 
that  most  deeply  important  of  all  political  questions,  whether 
ours  is  a  federal  or  a  .consolidated  government  ', — a  question, 
on  the  decision  of  which  depend,  as  I  solemnly  believe,  the 
liberty  of  the  people,  their  happiness,  and  the  place  which 
we  are  destined  to  hold  in  the  moral  and  intellectual  scale 
of  nations.  Never  was  there  a  controversy  in  which  more 
important  consequences  were  involved ;  not  excepting  that 
between  Persia  and  Greece,  decided  by  the  battles  of  Mara- 
thon, Platea,  and  Salamis — which  gave .  ascendency  to  the 
genius  of  Europe  .over  that  of  Asia — and  which,  in  its  con- 
sequences, has  continued  to  "affect  the  destiny  of  so  large  a 
portion  of  the  world  even  to  this  day.  There  are  often  close 
analogies  between  events  apparently  very  remote,  which  are 
strikingly  illustrated  in  this  case.  In  the  great  contest  be- 
tween Greece  and  Persia,  between  European  and  Asiatic 
polity  and  civilization,  the  very  question  between  the  federal 
and  consolidated  form  of  government  was  involved.  .  The 
Asiatic  governments,  from,  the  remotest  time,  with  some 
exceptions  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Mediterranean,  have 
been  based  on  the  principle  of  consolidation,  which  considers 
the  whole  community  asT)ut  a  unit,  and  consolidates  its  powers 
in  a  central  point.  The  opposite  principle  has  prevailed  in 
Europe — Greece,  throughout  all  her  states,  was  based  on  a 
federal  system.  All  were  united  in  One  common  but  loose  bond, 
and  the  governments  of  the  several  States  partook,  for  the 
most  part,  of  .a  complex  organization,  which  distributed 
political  power  among  different  members  of  the  community. 
The  same,  principles  prevailed-  in  ancient  Italy  ;  and,  if  we 
turn  to  the  Teutonic  race,  our  great  ancestors — the  race 
which  occupies  the  first  place  in  power,  civilization,  and 
•  science,  and  which  possesses  the  largest  and  the  fairest  part 


V  T 


SPEECHES.  239 

of  Europe — we  shall  find  that  their  governments  were  based 
on  federal  organization,  as  has  been  clearly  illustrated  by  a 
recent  and  able  writer  on  the  British  Constitution  (Mr.  Pal- 
grave),  from  whose  works  I  take  the  following  extract :  ' 

"  In  this  manner  the  first  establishment  of  the  Teutonic  States  was 
effected.  They  were  assemblages  of  septs,  clans,  and  tribes  ;  they  were 
confederated  hosts  and  armies,  kd  on  by  princes,  magistrates,  and  chief- 
tains ;  each  of  whom  was  originally  independent,  and  each  of  whom  tost 
a  portion  of  his  pristine  independence  in  proportion  as  he  and  his  compeers 
became  united  under  the  supremacy  of  a  sovereign,  who  was  superinduced 
upon  the  state,  first  as  a  military  commander  and  afterward  as  a  king. 
Yet,  notwithstanding  this  political  connection,  each  member  of  the  state 
continued  to  retain  a  considerable  portion  of  the  rights  of  sovereignty. 
Every  ancient  Teutonic  monarchy  must  be  considered  as  a  federation ;  it 
is  not  a  unit,  of  which  the  smaller  bodies  politic  therein  contained  are  the 
fractions,  but  they  are  the  integers,  and  the  state  is  the  multiple  which 
results  from  them.  l)ukedoms  and  counties,  burghs  and  baronies,  towns 
and  townships,  and  shires,  form  the  kingdom ;  all,  in  a  certain  degree, 
strangers  to  each  other,  and  separate  in  jurisdiction,  though  all  obedient 
to  the  supreme  executive  authority.  This  general  description,  though  not 
always  strictly  applicable  in  terms,  is  always  so  substantially  and  in 
effect ;  and  hence  it  becomes  necessary  to  discard  the  language  which  has 
been  very  generally  employed  in  treating  on  the  English  Constitution.  It 
has  been  supposed  that  the  kingdom  was  reduced  into  a  regular  and 
gradual  subordination  of  government,  and  that  the  various  legal  districts 
of  which  it  is  composed,  arose  from  the  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  the 
country.  But  this  hypothesis,  which  tends  greatly  to  perplex  oilr  history, 
cannot  be  supported  by  fact ;  and,  instead  of  viewing  the  constitution  as  a 
whole,  and  then  proceeding  to  its  parts,  we  must  examine  it  synthetically, 
and  assume  that  the  supreme  authorities  of  the  state  were  created  by  the 
concentration  of  the  powers  originally  belonging  to  the  members  and  cor- 
porations of  which  it  is  composed." 

[Here  Mr.  C.  gave  way  for  a  motion  to  adjourn.] 

On  the  next  day  Mr.  Calhoun  said :  I  have  omitted  at 
the  proper  place,  in  the  course  of  my  observations  yesterday, 
two  or  three  points,  to  which  I  will  now  advert,  before  I  re- 
sume the  discussion-  where  I  left  off.  I  have  stated  that  the 
ordinance  and  acts  of  South  Carolina  were  directed,  not 


240  SPEECHES. 

against  the  revenue,  but  against  the  system  of  protection. 
But  it  may  be  asked,  if  such  was  her  object,  how  happens  it 
that  she  has  declared  the  whole  system  void — revenue  as 
well  as  protection,  without  discrimination  ?  It  is  this  ques- 
tion which  I  propose  to  answer.  Her  justification  will  be 
found  in  the  necessity  of  the  case  ;  and  if  there  be  any 
blame,  it  cannot  attach  to  her.  The  two  are  so  blended, 
throughout  the  whole,  as  to  make  the  entire  revenue  system 
subordinate  to  the  protective,  so  as  to  constitute  a  complete 
system  of  protection,  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  discrimi- 
nate the  two  elements  of  which  it  is  composed.  South 
Carolina,  at  least,  could  not  make  the  discrimination ;  and 
she  was  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  acquiescing  in  a  system 
which  she  believed  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  which  she 
felt  to  be  oppressive  and  ruinous,  or  to  consider  the  whole 
as  one,  equally  contaminated  through  all  its  parts,  by  the 
unconstitutionality  of  the  protective  portion,  and  as  such,  to 
be  resisted  by  the  act  of  the  State.  I  maintain  that  the 
State  has  a  right  to  regard  it  in  the  latter  character,  and  that, 
if  a  loss  of  revenue  follow,  the  fault  is  not  hers,  but  of  this 
Government,  which  has  improperly  blended  together,  in  a 
manner  not  to  be  separated  by  the  State,  two  systems 
wholly  dissimilar.  If  the  sincerity  of  the  State  be  doubted  ; 
if  it  be  supposed  that  her  action  is  against  revenue  as  well 
as  protection,  let  the  two  be  separated — let  so  much  of  the 
duties  as  are  intended  for  revenue  be  put  hi  one  bill,  and  the 
residue  intended  for  protection  be  put  in  another,  and  I 
pledge  myself  that  the  ordinance  and  the  acts  of  the  State 
will  cease  as  to  the  former,  and  be  directed  exclusively  against 
the  latter. 

I  also  stated,  in  the  course  of  my  remarks  yesterday,  and 
I  trust  that  I  have  conclusively  shown,  that  the  act  of  1816, 
with  the  exception  of  a  single  item,  to  which  I  have  alluded, 
was,  in  reality,  a  revenue  measure  ;  and  that  Carolina  and 
the  other  States,  in  supporting  it,  have  not  incurred  the 


SPEECHES.  241 

slightest  responsibility  in  relation  to  the  system  of  protection 
which  has  since  grown  up,  and  which  now  so  deeply  distracts 
the  country.  Sir,  I  am  willing,  as  one  of  the  representatives 
of  Carolina,  and  I  believe  I  speak  the  sentiment  of  the  State, 
to  take  that  act  as  the  basis  of  a  permanent  adjustment  of  the 
tariff,  simply  reducing  the  duties,  in  an  average  proportion, 
on  all  the  items  to  the  revenue  point.  I  make  that  offer 
now  to  the  advocates  of  the  protective  system  ;  but  I  must, 
in  candor,  inform  them  that  such  an  adjustment  would  dis- 
tribute the  revenue  between  the  protected  and  unprotected 
articles  more  favorably  to  the  State,  and  to  the  South,  and 
less  to  the  manufacturing  interest,  than  an  average  uniform 
ad  valorem,  and,  accordingly,  more  so  than  that  now  proposed 
by  Carolina  through  her  convention.  After  such  an  offer,  no 
man  who  values  his  candor  will  dare  accuse  the  State,  or 
those  who  have  represented  her  here,  with  inconsistency  in 
reference  to  the  point  under  consideration. 

I  omitted,  also,  on  yesterday,  to  notice  a  remark  of  the 
Senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Kives),  that  the  only  difficulty 
in  adjusting  the.,  tariff  grew  out  of  the  ordinance  and  the 
acts  of  South  Carolina.  I  must  attribute  an  assertion,  so  in- 
consistent with  the  facts,  to  an  ignorance  of  the  occurrences 
of  the  last  few  years  in  reference  to  this  subject,  occasioned 
by  the  absence  of  the  gentleman  from  the  United  States,  to 
which  he  himself  has  alluded  in  his  remarks.  If  the  Senator 
will  take  pains  to  inform  himself,  he  will  find  that  this  pro- 
tective system  advanced  with  a  continued  and  rapid  step,  in 
spite  of  petitions,  remonstrances,  and  protests,  of  not  only 
Carolina,  but  also  of  Virginia  and  of  all  the  Southern  States, 
until  1828,  when  Carolina,  for  the  first  time,  changed  the 
character  of  her  resistance,  by  holding  up  her  reserved  rights 
as  the  shield  of  her  defence  against  further  encroachment. 
This  attitude  alone,  unaided  by  a  single  State,  arrested  the 
further  progress  of  the  system,  so  that  the  question  from 
that  period  to  this,  on  the  part  of  the  manufacturers,  has 

VOL.   II. — 16 


242  SPEECHES. 

been,  not  how  to  acquire  more,  but  to  retain  that  which  they 
have  acquired.  I  will  inform  the  gentleman  that,  if  this  at- 
titude had  not  been  taken  on  the  part  of  the  State,  the  ques- 
tion would  not  now  be  how  duties  ought  to  be  repealed,  but 
a  question,  as  to  the  protected  articles,  between  prohibition 
on  one  side  and  the  duties  established  by  the  act  of  1828  on 
the  other.  But  a  single  remark  will  be  sufficient  in  reply  to, 
what  I  must  consider,  the  invidious  remark  of  the  Senator 
from  Virginia  (Mr.  Rives).  The  act  of  1832,  which  has  not 
yet  gone  into  operation,  and  which  was  passed  but  a  few 
months  since,  was  declared  by  the  supporters  of  the  system 
to  be  &  permanent  adjustment,  and  the  bill  proposed  by  the 
Treasury  Department,  not  essentially  different  from  the  act 
itself,  was  in  like  manner  declared  to  be  intended  by  the  ad- 
ministration as  a  permanent  arrangement.  What  has  oc- 
curred since,  except  this  ordinance,  and  these  abused  acts  of 
the  calumniated  State,  to  produce  this  mighty  revolution  in 
reference  to  this  odious  system  ?  Unless  the  Senator  from 
Virginia  can  assign  some  other  cause,  he  is  bound,  upon 
every  principle  of  fairness,  to  retract  this  -unjust  aspersion 
upon  the  acts  of  South  Carolina. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clayton),  as  well  as 
others,  has  relied  with  great  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  we 
are  citizens  of  the  United  States.  I  do  not  object  to  the  ex- 
pression, nor  shall  I  detract  from  the  proud  and  elevated 
feelings  with  which  it  is  associated  ;  but  I  trust  that  I  may 
be  permitted  to  raise  the  inquiry,  In  what  manner  are  we 
citizens  of  the  United  States  ?  without  weakening  the  pa- 
triotic feeling  with  which,  I  trust,  it  will  ever  be  uttered. 
If  by  citizen  of  the  United  States  he  means  a  citizen  at 
large,  one  whose  citizenship  extends  to  the  entire  geo- 
graphical limits  of  the  country,  without  having  a  local  citi- 
zenship in  some  State  or  territory,  a  sort  of  citizen  of  the 
world,  all  I  have  to  say  is,  that  such  a  citizen  would  be  a 
perfect  nondescript ;  that  not  a  single  individual  of  this  de- 


SPEECHES.  243 

scription  can  be  found  in  the  entire  mass  of  our  population. 
Notwithstanding  all  the  pomp  and  display  of  eloquence  on 
the  occasion,  every  citizen  is  a  citizen  of  some  State  or  terri- 
tory, and,  as  such,  under  an  express  provision  of  the  consti- 
tution, is  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens 
in  the  several  States  ;  and  it  is  in  this,  and  in  no  other  sense, 
that  we  are  citizens  of  the  United  States.  The  Senator  from 
Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Dallas),  indeed,  relies  upon  that  provision 
in  the  constitution  which  gives  Congress  the  power  to  estab- 
lish an  uniform  rule  of  naturalization  ;  and  the  operation  of 
the  rule  actually  established  under  this  authority,  to  prove 
that  naturalized  citizens  are  citizens  at  large,  without  being 
citizens  of  any  of  the  States.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to 
examine  the  law  of  Congress  upon  this  subject,  or  to  reply  to 
the  argument  of  the  Senator,  though  I  cannot  doubt  that  he 
(Mr.  D.)  has  taken  an  entirely  erroneous  view  of  the  subject. 
It  is  sufficient  that  the  power  of  Congress  extends  simply  to 
the  establishment  of  a  uniform  rule  by  which  foreigners  may 
be  naturalized  in  the  several  States  or  territories,  without  in- 
fringing, in  any  other  respeot,  in  reference  to  naturalization, 
the  rights  of  the  States/as  they  existed  before  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution.  >/ 

Having  suppjiea  the  omissions  of  yesterday,  I  now  re- 
sume the  subject  at  the  point  where  my  remarks  then  termi- 
nated. The  Senate  will  remember  that  I  stated,  at  their 
close,  that  the  great  question  at  issue  is,  whether  ours  is  a 
federal  or  a  consolidated  system  of  government ;  a  system  in 
which  the  parts,  to  use  the  emphatic  language  of  Mr.  Pal- 
grave,  are  the  integers,  and  the  whole  the  multiple,  or  in 
which  the  whole  is  an  unit  and  the  parts  the  fractions.  I 
stated,  that  on  the  decision  of  this  question,  I  believed,  de- 
pended not  only  the  liberty  and  prosperity  of  this  country, 
but  the  place  which  we  are  destined  to  hold  in  the  intellectual 
and  moral  scale  of  nations.  I  stated,  also,  in  my  remarks  on 
this  point,  that  there  is  a  striking  analogy  between  this 


244  SPEECHES. 

and  the  great  struggle  between  Persia  and  Greece,  which 
was  decided  by  the  battles  of  Marathon,  Platea,  and  Salamis, 
and  which  immortalized  the  names  of  Miltiades  and  Themis- 
tocles.  I  illustrated  this  analogy  by  showing  that  centralism 
or  consolidation,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  nations  along 
the  eastern  borders  of  the  Mediterranean,  has  been  the  per- 
vading principle  in  the  Asiatic  governments,  while  the  fede- 
ral system,  or,  what  is  the  same  in  principle,  that  system 
which  organizes  a  community  in  reference  to  its  parts,  has 
prevailed  in  ~Etmope.^^ 

Among  the  ^exceptions  in  the  Asiatic  nations,  the 
government  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  in  its  early  period, 
is  the  most  striking.  Their  government,  at  first,  was  a  mere 
confederation  without  any  central  power,  till  a  military  chief- 
tain, with  the  title  of  king,  was  placed  at  its  head,  without, 
however,  merging  the  original  organization  of  the  twelve  dis- 
tinct tribes.  This  was  the  commencement  of  that  central 
action  among  that  peculiar  people  which,  in  three  genera- 
tions, terminated  in  a  permanent  division  of  their  tribes.^  It 
is  impossible  even  for  a  careless  reader  to  peruse  the  history 
of  that  event  without  being  forcibly  struck  with  the  analogy 
in  the  causes  which  led  to  their  separation,  and  those  which  / 
now  threaten  us  with  a  similar  calamity.  With  the  estab-* 
lishment  of  the  central  power  in  the  king  commenced  a  sys- 
tem of  taxation,  which,  under  King  Solomon,  was  greatly 
increased,  to  defray  the  expenses  of  rearing  the  temple,  of 
enlarging  and  embellishing  Jerusalem,  the  seat  of  the  central 
government,  and  the  other  profuse  expenditures  of  his  magnifi- 
cent reign.  Increased  taxation  was  followed  by  its  natural 
consequences — discontent  and  complaint,  which,  before  his 
death,  began  to  excite  resistance.  On  the  succession  of  his 
son,  Kehoboam,  the  ten  tribes,  headed  by  Jeroboam,  demand- 
ed a  reduction  of  the  taxes  ;  the  temple  being  finished,  and 
the  embellishment  of  Jerusalem  completed,  and  the  money 
which  had  been  raised  for  that  purpose  being  no  longer  Ye- 


SPEECHES.  245 

quired,  or,  in  other  words,  the  debt  being  paid,  they  de- 
manded a  reduction  of  the  duties — a  repeal  of  the  tariff. 
The  demand  was  taken  under  consideration,  and  after  consult- 
ing the  old  men,  the  counsellors  of  '98,  who  advised  a  reduc- 
tion, he  then  took  the  opinion  of  the  younger  politicians,  who 
had  since  grown  up,  and  knew  not  the  doctrines  of  their 
fathers  ;  he  hearkened  unto  their  counsel,  and  refused  to 
make  the  reduction,  and  the  secession  of  the  ten  tribes  under 
Jeroboam  followed.  The  tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin, 
which  had  received  the  disbursements,  alone  remained  to  the 
house  of  David. 

But  to  return  to  the  point  immediately  under  considera- 
tion. I  know  that  it  is  not  only  the  opinion  of  a  large 
majority  of  our  country,  but  it  may  be  said  to  be  the  opinion 
of  the  age,  that  the  very  beau  ideal  of  a  perfect  government 
is  the  government  of  a  majority,  acting  through  a  representa- 
tive body,  without  check  or  limitation  on  its  power  ;  yet,  if 
we  may  test  this  theory  by  experience  and  reason,  we  shall 
find  that,  so  far  from  being  perfect,  the  necessary  tendency 
of  all  governments,  based  upon  the  will  of  an  absolute  ma- 
jority, without  constitutional  check  or  limitation  of  power,  is 
to  faction,  corruption,  anarchy,  and  despotism ;  and  this, 
whether  the  will  of  the  majority  be  expressed  directly 
through  an  assembly  of  the  people  themselves,  or  by  their 
representatives.  I  know  that,  in  venturing  this  assertion,  I 
utter  what  is  unpopular  both  within  and  without  these  walls  ; 
but  where  truth  and  liberty  are  concerned,  such  considera- 
tions should  not  be  regarded.  I  will  place  the  decision  of 
this  point  on  the  fact  that  no  government  of  the  kind,  among 
the  many  attempts  which  have  been  made,  has  ever  endured 
for  a  single  generation,  but,  on  the  contrary  has  invariably 
experienced  the  fate  which  I  have  assigned  to  it.  Let  a 
single  instance  be  pointed  out,  and  I  will  surrender  my 
opinion.  But,  if  we  had  not  the  aid  of  experience  to  direct 
our  judgment,  reason  itself  would  be  a  certain  guide.  The 


246  SPEECHES. 

view  which  considers  the  community  as  an  unit,  and  all  its 
parts  as  having  a  similar  interest,  is  radically  erroneous. 
However  small  the  community  may  be,  and  however  homo- 
geneous its  interests,  the  moment  that  government  is  put 
into  operation — as  soon  as  it  begins  to  collect  taxes  and  to 
make  appropriations,  the  different  portions  of  the  community 
must,  of  necessity,  bear  different  and  opposing  relations  in 
reference  to  the  action  of  the  government.  There  must 
inevitably  spring  up  two  interests — a  direction  and  a  stock- 
holder interest — an  interest  profiting  by  the  action  of  the 
government,  and  interested  in  increasing  its  powers  and 
action  ;  and  another,  at  whose  expense  the  political  machine 
is  kept  in  motion.  I  know  how  difficult  it  is  to  communi- 
cate distinct  ideas  on  such  a  subject,  through  the  medium 
of  general  propositions,  without  particular  illustration  ;  and 
in  order  that  I  may  be  distinctly  understood,  though  at  the 
hazard  of  being  tedious,  I  will  illustrate  the  important  prin- 
ciple which  I  have  ventured  to  advance,  by  examples. 

Let  us,  then,  suppose  a  small  community  of  five  persons, 
separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world  ;  and,  to  make  the  ex- 
ample strong,  let  us  suppose  them  all  to  be  engaged  in  the 
same  pursuit,  and  to  be  of  equal  wealth.  Let  us  further  sup- 
pose that  they  determine  to  govern  the  community  by  the 
will  of  a  majority  ;  and,  to  make  the  case  as  strong  as  pos- 
sible, let  us  suppose  that  the  majority,  in  order  to  meet  the 
expenses  of  the  government,  lay  an  equal  tax,  say  of  one 
hundred  dollars  on  each  individual  of  this  little  community. 
Their  treasury  would  contain  five  hundred  dollars.  Three 
are  a  majority ;  and  they,  by  supposition,  have  contributed 
three  hundred  as  their  portion,  and  the  other  two  (the  mi- 
nority), two  hundred.  The  three  have  the  right  to  make  the 
appropriations  as  they  may  think  proper.  The  question  is, 
How  would  the  principle  of  the  absolute  and  unchecked  ma- 
jority operate,  under  these  circumstances,  in  this  little  com- 
munity ?  If  the  three  be  governed  by  a  sense  of  justice — if 


SPEECHES/  247 

they  should  appropriate  the  money  to  the  objects  for  which 
it  was  raised,  the  common  and  equal  benefit  of  the  five,  then 
the  object  of  the  association  would  be  fairly  and  honestly 
effected,  and  each  would  have  a  common  interest  in  the 
government.  But,  should  the  majority  pursue  an  opposite 
course — should  they  appropriate  the  money  in  a  manner  to 
benefit  their  own  particular  interest,  without  regard  to  the 
interest  of  the  two  (and  that  they  will  so  act,  unless  there  be 
some  efficient  check,  he  who  best  knows  human  nature  will 
least  doubt),  who  does  not  see  that  the  three  and  the  two 
would  have  directly  opposite  interests  in  reference  to  the  action 
of  the  government  ?  The  three  who  contribute  to  the  common 
treasury  but  three  hundred  dollars,  could,  in  fact,  by  appro- 
priating the  five  hundred  to  their  own  use,  convert  the  action 
of  the  government  into  the  means  of  making  money,  and,  of 
consequence,  would  have  a  direct  interest  in  increasing  the 
taxes.  They  put  in  three  hundred  and  take  out  five  ;  that 
is,  they  take  back  to  themselves  all  that  they  put  in,  and,  in 
addition,  that  which  was  put  in  by  their  associates  ;  or,  in 
other  words,  taking  taxation  and  appropriation  together, 
they  have  gained,  and  their  associates  have  lost,  two  hundred 
dollars  by  the  fiscal  action  of  the  government.  Opposite 
interests,  in  reference  to  the  action  of  the  government,  are 
thus  created  between  them :  the  one  having  an  interest  in 
favor,  and  the  other  against  the  taxes  ;  the  one  to  increase, 
and  the  other  to  decrease  the  taxes ;  the  one  to  retain  the 
taxes  when  the  money  is  no  longer  wanted,  and  the  other  to 
repeal  them  when  the  objects  for  which  they  were  levied 
have  been  secured. 

Let  us  now  suppose  this  community  of  five  to  be  raised 
to  twenty-four  individuals,  to  be  governed,  in  like  manner, 
by  the  will  of  a  majority  :  it  is  obvious  that  the  same  prin- 
ciple would  divide  them  into  two  interests — into  a  majority  and 
a  minority,  thirteen  against  eleven,  or  in  some  other  propor- 
tion ;  and  that  all  the  consequences  which  I  have  shown  to 


248  SPEECHES. 

be  applicable  to  the  small  community  of  five  would  be  ap- 
plicable to  the  greater,  the  cause  not  depending  upon  the 
number,  but  resulting  necessarily  from  the  action  of  the 
government  itself.  Let  us  now  suppose  that,  instead  of  gov- 
erning themselves  directly  in  an  assembly  of  the  whole,  with- 
out the  intervention  of  agents,  they  should  adopt  the  repre- 
sentative principle  ;  and  that,  instead  of  being  governed  by  a 
majority  of  themselves,  they  should  be  governed  by  a  major- 
ity of  their  representatives.  It  is  obvious  that  the  operation 
of  the  system  would  not  be  affected  by  the  change  :  the  re- 
presentatives being  responsible  to  those  who  chose  them, 
would  conform  to  the  will  of  their  constituents,  and  would 
act  as  they  would  do  were  they  present  and  acting  for  them- 
selves ;  and  the  same  conflict  of  interest,  which  we  have 
shown  would  exist  in  one  case,  would  equally  exist  in  the 
other.  In  either  case,  the  inevitable  result  would  be  a  system 
of  hostile  legislation  on  the  part  of  the  majority,  or  the 
stronger  interest,  against  the  minority,  or  the  weaker  inter- 
est ;  the  object  of  which,  on  the  part  of  the  former,  would 
be  to  exact  as  much  as  possible  from  the  latter,  which  would 
necessarily  be  resisted  by  all  the  means  in  their  power.  War- 
fare, by  legislation,  would  thus  be  commenced  between  the 
parties,  with  the  same  object,  and  not  less  hostile  than  that 
which  is  carried  on  between  distinct  and  rival  nations — the 
only  distinction  would  be  in  the  instruments  and  the  mode. 
Enactments,  in  the  one  case,  would  supply  what  could  only 
be  effected  by  arms  in  the  other  ;  and  the  inevitable  opera- 
tion would  be  to  engender  the  most  hostile  feelings  between 
the  parties,  which  would  merge  every  feeling  of  patriotism — 
that  feeling  which  embraces  the  whole — and  substitute  in  its 
place  the  most  violent  party  attachment  ;  and  instead  of 
having  one  common  centre  of  attachment,  around  which  the 
affections  of  the  community  might  rally,  there  would  in  fact 
be  two —  the  interests  of  the  majority,  to  which  those  who 
constitute  that  majority  would  be  more  attached  than  they 


SPEECHES.  249 

would  be  to  the  whole, — and  that  of  the  minority,  to  \vhich 
they,  in  like  manner,  would  also  be  more  attached  than  to 
the  interests  of  the  whole.  Faction  would  thus  take  the  place 
of  patriotism  ;  and,  with  the  loss  of  patriotism,  corruption 
must  necessarily  follow,  and  in  its  train,  anarchy,  and,  finally, 
despotism,  or  the  establishment  of  absolute  power  in  a  single 
individual,  as  a  means  of  arresting  the  conflict  of  hostile  in- 
terests ;  on  the  principle  that  it  is  better  to  submit  to  the 
will  of  a  single  individual,  who  by  being  made  lord  and  mas- 
ter of  the  whole  community,  would  have  an  equal  interest  in 
the  protection  of  all  the  parts. 

Let  us  next  suppose  that,  in  order  to  avert  the  calami- 
tous train  of  consequences,  this  little  community  should  adopt 
a  written  constitution,  with  limitations  restricting  the  will  of 
the  majority,  in  order  to  protect  the  minority  against  the 
oppression  which  I  have  shown  would  necessarily  result  with- 
out such  restrictions.  It  is  obvious  that  the  case  would  not 
be  in  the  slightest  degree  varied,  if  the  majority  be  left  in 
possession  of  the  right  of  judging  exclusively  of  the  extent 
of  its  powers,  without  any  right  on  the  part  of  the  minority 
to  enforce  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  constitution  on 
the  will  of  the  majority.  The  point  is  almost  too  clear  for 
illustration.  Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that,  when  a 
constitution  grants  power,  and  imposes  limitations  on  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  power,  whatever  interests  may  obtain  posses- 
sion of  the  government,  will  be  in  favor  of  extending  the 
power  at  the  expense  of  the  limitation  ;  and  that,  unless 
those  in  whose  behalf  the  limitations  were  imposed  have, 
in  some  form  or  mode,  the  right  of  enforcing  them,  the 
power  will  ultimately  supersede  the  limitation,  and  the  gov- 
ernment must  operate  precisely  in  the  same  manner  as  if  the 
will  of  the  majority  governed  without  constitution  or  limita- 
tion of  power. 

I  have  thus  presented  all  possible  modes  in  which  a  gov- 
ernment founded  upon  the  will  of  an  absolute  majority  will 


250  SPEECHES. 

be  modified  ;  and  have  demonstrated  that,  in  all  its  forms, 
whether  in  a  majority  of  the  people,  as  in  a  mere  Democra- 
cy, or  in  a  majority  of  their  representatives,  without  a  con- 
stitution or  with  a  constitution,  to  be  interpreted  as  the  will 
of  the  majority,  the  result  will  be  the  same  :  two  hostile  in- 
terests will  inevitably  be  created  by  the  action  of  the  govern- 
ment, to  be  followed  by  hostile  legislation,  and  that  by  fac- 
tion, corruption,  anarchy,  and  despotism. 

The  great  and  solemn  question  here  presents  itself,  Is 
there  any  remedy  for  these  evils  ?  on  the  decision  of  which 
depends  the  question,  whether  the  people  can  govern  them- 
selves, which  has  been  so  often  asked  with  so  much  skepti- 
cism and  doubt.  There  is  a  remedy,  and  but  one, — the  effect 
of  which,  whatever  may  be  the  form,  is  to  organize  society 
in  reference  to  this  conflict  of  interests,  which  springs  out  of 
the  action  of  government ;  and  which  can  only  be  done  by 
giving  to  each  part  the  right  of  self-protection  ;  which,  in  a 
word,  instead  of  considering  the  community  of  twenty-four 
a  single  community,  having  a  common  interest,  and  to  be 
governed  by  the  single  will  of  an  entire  majority,  shall  upon 
all  questions  tending  to  bring  the  parts  into  conflict,  the 
thirteen  against  the  eleven,  take  the  will,  not  of  the  twenty- 
i  four  as  a  unit,  but  of  the  thirteen  and  of  the  eleven  sepa- 
rately,— the  majority  of  each  governing  the  parts,  and  where 
they  concur,  governing  the  whole, — and  where  they  disagree, 
arresting  the  action  of  the  government.  This  I  will  call  the 
concurring,  as  distinct  from  the  absolute  majority.  In  either 
way  the  number  would  be  the  same,  whether  taken  as  the 
absolute  or  as  the  concurring  majority.  Thus,  the  majority 
of  the  thirteen  is  seven,  and  of  the  eleven  six  ;  and  the  two 
together  make  thirteen,  which  is  the  majority  of  twenty-four. 
But,  though  the  number  is  the  same,  the  mode  of  counting 
is  essentially  different :  the  one  representing  the  strongest 
interest,  and  the  other,  the  entire  interests  of  the  community. 
/The  first  mistake  is,  in  supposing  that  the  government  of 


SPEECHES.  251 

the  absolute  majority  is  the  government  of  the  people — that 
beau  ideal  of  a  perfect  government  which  has  been  so  enthu- 
siastically entertained  in  every  age  by  the  generous  and  pa- 
trotic,  where  civilization  and  liberty  have  made  the  smallest 
progress.  There  can  be  no  greater  error :  the  government 
of  the  people  is  the  government  of  the  whole  community — 
of  the  twenty-four — the  self-government  of  all  the  parts — 
too  perfect  to  be  reduced  to  practice  in  the  present,  or  any 
past  stage  of  human  society.  The  government  of  the  abso- 
lute majority,  instead  of  being  the  government  of  the  peo- 
ple, is  but  the  government  of  the  strongest  interests,  and, 
when  not  efficiently  checked,  is  the  most  tyrannical  and  op- 
pressive that  can  be  devised.  Between  this  ideal  perfection 
on  the  one  side,  and  despotism  on  the  other,  no  other  system 
can  be  devised  but  that  which  considers  society  in  reference  to 
its  parts,  as  differently  affected  by  the  action  of  the  government, 
and  which  takes  the  sense  of  each  part  separately,  and  there- 
by the  sense  of  the  whole,  in  the  manner  already  illustrated. 
These  principles,  as  I  have  already  stated,  are  not  affect- 
ed by  the  number  of  which  the  community  may  be  com- 
posed, but  are  just  as  applicable  to  one  of  thirteen  millions — 
the  number  which  composes  ours — as  of  the  small  communi- 
ty of  twenty-four,  which  I  have  supposed  for  the  purpose  of 
illustration  ;  and  are  not  less  applicable  to  the  twenty-four 
States  united  in  one  community,  than  to  the  case  of  the 
twenty-four  individuals.  There  is,  indeed,  a  distinction  be- 
tween a  large  and  a  small  community,  not  affecting  the  prin- 
ciple, but  the  violence  of  the  action.  In  the  former,  the 
similarity  of  the  interests  of  all  the  parts  will  limit  the  op- 
pression from  the  hostile  action  of  the  parts,  in  a  great  de- 
gree, to  the  fiscal  action  of  the  government  merely  ;  but  in 
the  large  community,  spreading  over  a  country  of  great  ex- 
tent, and  having  a  great  diversity  of  interests,  with  different 
kinds  of  labor,  capital,  and  production,  the  conflict  and  op- 
pression will  extend,  not  only  to  a  monopoly  of  the  appropri- 


252  SPEECHES.^ 

ations  on  the  part  of  the  stronger  interests,  but  will  end  in 
unequal  taxes,  and  a  general  conflict  between  the  entire  in- 
terests of  conflicting  sections,  which,  if  not  arrested  by  the 
most  powerful  checks,  will  terminate  in  the  most  oppressive 
tyranny  that  can  be  conceived,  or  in  the  destruction  of  the 
community  itself. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  from  these  supposed  cases,  and 
direct  it  to  our  government  and  its  actual  operation,  we  shall 
find  a  practical  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  what  has  been 
stated,  not  only  of  the  oppressive  operation  of  the  system  of 
an  absolute  majority,  but  also  a  striking  and  beautiful  illus- 
tration, in  the  formation  of  our  systeqif,  of  the  principle  of 
the  concurring  majority,  as  distinct  from  the  absolute,  which 
I  have  asserted  to  be  the  only  means  of  efficiently  checking 
the  abuse  of  power,  and,  df  course,  the  only  solid  foundation 
of  constitutional  libertW  That  our  government,  for  many 
years,  has  been  graduallyt-verging  to  consolidation  ;  that  the 
constitution  has  gradually  become  a  dead  letter  ;  and  that 
all  restrictions  upon  the  power  of  government  have  been  vir- 
tually removed,  so  as  practically  to  convert  the  General  Gov- 
ernment into  a  government  of  an  absolute  majority,  without 
check  or  limitation,  cannot  be  denied  by  any  one  who  has  im- 
partially observed  its  operation/ 

It  is  not  necessary  to  trace/ the  commencement  and  grad- 
ual progress  of  the  causes  which  have  produced  this  change 
in  our  system  ;  it  is  sufficient  to  state  that  the  change  has 
taken  place  within  the  last  few  years.  What  has  been  the 
result  ?  Precisely  that  which  might  have  been  anticipated  : 
the  growth  of  faction,  corruption,  anarchy,  and,  if  not  des- 
potism itself,  its  near  approach,  as  witnessed  in  the  provi- 
sions of  this  bill.  And  from  what  have  these  consequences 
sprung  ?  We  have  been  involved  in  no  war.  We  have 
been  at  peace  with  all  the  world.  We  have  been  visited 
with  no  national  calamity.  Our  people  have  been  advancing 
in  general  intelligence,  and,  I  will  add,  as  great  and  alarm- 


SPEECHES.  253 

ing  as  has  been  the  advance  of  political  corruption  among 
the  mercenary  corps  who  look  to  Government  for  support,  the 
morals  and  virtue  of  the  community  at  large  have  been  ad- 
vancing in  improvement.  What,  I  again  repeat,  is  the 
cause  ?  No  other  can  be  assigned  but  a  departure  from  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  constitution,  which  has  con- 
verted the  Government  into  the  will  of  an  absolute  and  irre- 
sponsible majority,  and  which,  by  the  laws  that  must  inevi- 
tably govern  in  all  such  majorities,  has  placed  in  conflict  the 
great  interests  of  the  country,  by  a  system  of  hostile  legis- 
lation, by  an  oppressive  and  unequal  imposition  of  taxes,  by 
unequal  and  profuse  appropriations,  and  by  rendering  the 
entire  labor  and  capital  of  the  weaker  interest  subordinate  to 
the  stronger. 

This  is  the  cause,  and  these  the  fruits,  which  have  con- 
verted the  Government  into  a  mere  instrument  of  taking 
money  from  one  portion  of  the  community,  to  be  given  to 
another ;  and  which  has*  rallied  around  it  a  great,  a  powerful, 
and  mercenary  corps  of  office-holders,  office-seekers,  and  ex- 
pectants, destitute  of  principle  and  patriotism,  and  who  have 
no  standard  of  morals  or  politics  but  the  will  of  the  Execu- 
tive— the  will  of  him  who  has  the  distribution  of  the  loaves 
and  the  fishes.  I  hold  it  impossible  for  any  one  to  look  at 
the  theoretical  illustration  of  the  principle  of  the  absolute 
majority  in  the  cases  which  I  have  supposed,  and  not  be 
struck  with  the  practical  illustration  in  the  actual  operation 
of  our  Government.  Under  every  circumstance,  the  absolute 
majority  will  ever  have  its  American  system  (I  mean  nothing 
offensive  to  any  Senator)  ;  but  the  /eal  meaning  of  the 
American  system  is,  that  system  of  plunder  which  the 
strongest  interest  has  ever  waged,  and  will  ever  wage,  against 
the  weaker,  where  the  latter  is  not  armed  with  some  efficient 
and  constitutional  check  to  arrest  its  action.  Nothing  but 
such  check  on  the  part  of  the  weaker  interest  can  arrest  it  : 
mere  constitutional  limitations  are  wholly  insufficient;  What- 


254  SPEECHES. 

ever  interest  obtains  possession  of  the  Government,  will,  from 
the  nature  of  things,  be  in  favor  of  the  powers,  and  against 
the  limitations  imposed  by  the  constitution,  and  will  resort 
to  every  device  that  can  be  imagined  to  remove  those  re- 
straints. On  the  contrary,  the  opposite  interest,  that  which 
I  have  designated  as  the  stockholding  interest,  the  tax-pay- 
ers, those  on  whom  the  system  operates,  will  resist  the  abuse 
of  powers,  and  contend  for  the  limitations.  And  it  is  on  this 
point,  then,  that  the  contest  between  the  delegated  and  the 
reserved  powers  will  be  waged  ;  but  in  this  contest,  as  the 
interests  in  possession  of  the  Government  are  organized  and 
armed  by  all  its  powers  and  patronage,  the  opposite  interest, 
if  not  in  like  manner  organized  and  possessed  of  a  power  to 
protect  themselves  under  the  provisions  of  the  constitution, 
will  be  as  inevitably  crushed  as  would  be  a  band  of  unorgan- 
ized militra  when  opposed  by  a  veteran  and  trained  corps  of 
regulars.  /  Let  it  never  be  forgotten,  that  power  can  only  be 
opposed  oy  power,  organization  by  organization  ;  and  on  this 
theory  stands  our  beautiful  federal  system  of  Government. 
No  free  system  was  ever  further  removed  from  the  principle 
that  the  absolute  majority,  without  check  or  limitation,  ought 
to  govern.  To  understand  what  our  Government  is,  we  must 
look  to  the  constitution,  which  is  the  basis  of  the  system/  I 
do  not  intend  to  enter  into  any  minute  examination  01  the 
origin  and  the  source  of  its  powers :  it  is  sufficient  for  my 
purpose  to  state,  what  I  do  fearlessly,  that  it  derived  its 
power  from  the  people  of  the  separate  States,  each  ratifying 
by  itself,  each  binding  itself  by  its  own  separate  majority, 
through  its  separate  convention,- — the  concurrence  of  the  ma- 
jorities of  the  several  States  forming  the  constitution  ; — thus 
taking  the  sense  of  the  whole  by  that  of  the  several  parts, 
representing  the  various  interests  of  the  entire  community. 
It  was  this  concurring  and  perfect  majority  which  formed  the 
constitution,  and  not  that  majority  which  would  consider  the 
American  people  as  a  single  community,  and  which,  instead 


SPEECHES.  255 

of  representing  fairly  and  fully  the  interests  of  the  whole, 
would  but  represent,  as  has  been  stated,  the  interests  of  the 
stronger  section.  No  candid  man  can  dispute  that  I  have 
given  a  correct  description  of  the  constitution-making  power : 
that  power  which  created  and  organized  the  Government, 
which  delegated  to  it,  as  a  common  agent,  certain  powers,  in 
trust  for  the  common  good  of  all  the  States,  and  which  im- 
posed strict  limitations  and  checks  against  abuses  and  usurpa- 
tions. In  administering  the  delegated  powers,  the  constitu- 
tion provides,  very  properly,  in  order  to  give  promptitude 
and  efficiency,  that  the  Government  shall  be  organized  upon 
the  principle  of  the  absolute  majority,  or,  rather,  of  two  ab- 
solute majorities  combined  :  a  majority  of  the  States  consid- 
ered as  bodies  politic,  which  prevails  in  this  body  ;  and  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people  of  the  States,  estimated  in  federal  num- 
bers, in  the  other  House  of  Congress.  A  combination  of  the 
two  prevails  in  the  choice  of  the  President,  and,  of  course, 
in  the  appointment  of  Judges,  they  being  nominated  by  the 
President  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate.  It  is  thus  that  the 
concurring  and  the  absolute  majorities  are  combined  in  one 
complex  system :  the  one  in  forming  the  constitution,  and 
the  other  in  making  and  executing  the  laws ;  thus  beauti- 
fully blending  the  moderation,  justice,  and  equity  of  the 
former,  and  more  perfect  majority,  with  the  promptness  and 
energy  of  the  latter,  but  less  perfect. 

To  maintain  the  ascendency  of  the  constitution  over  the 
law-making  majority  is  the  great  and  essential  point,  on 
which  the  success  of  the  system  must  depend.  Unless  that 
ascendency  can  be  preserved,  the  necessary  consequence 
must  be,  that  the  laws  will  supersede  the  constitution  ;  and, 
finally,  the  will  of  the  Executive,  by  the  influence  of  his 
patronage,  will  supersede  the  laws — indications  of  which  are 
already  perceptible.  This  ascendency  can  only  be  preserved 
through  the  action  of  the  States  as  organized  bodies,  having 
their  own  separate  governments,  and  possessed  of  the  right, 


256  SPEECHES. 

under  the  structure  of  our  system,  of  judging  of  the  extent 
of  their  separate  powers,  and  of  interposing  their  authority 
to  arrest  the  unauthorized  enactments  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment within  their  respective  limits.  I  will  not  enter,  at 
this  time,  into  the  discussion  of  this  important  point,  as  it 
has  been  ably  and  fully  presented  by  the  Senator  from  Ken- 
tucky (Mr.  Bibb),  and  others  who  preceded  him  in  this 
debate  on  the  same  side,  whose  arguments  not  only  remain 
unanswered,  but  are  unanswerable.  It  is  only  by  this  power 
of  interposition  that  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States  can  be 
peacefully  and  efficiently  protected  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  General  Government — that  the  limitations 
imposed  upon  its  authority  can  be  enforced,  and  its  move- 
ments confined  to  the  orbit  allotted  to  it  by  the  con- 
stitution. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  said  in  debate,  that  this  can  be 
effected  by  the  organization  of  the  General  Government 
itself,  particularly  by  the  action  of  this  body,  which  repre- 
sents the  States — and  that  the  States  themselves  must  look 
to  the  General  Government  for  the  perservation  of  many  of 
the  most  important  of  their  reserved  rights.  I  do  not 
underrate  the  value  to  be  attached  to  the  organic  arrange- 
ment of  the  General  Government,  and  the  wise  distribution 
of  its  powers  between  the  several  departments,  and,  in  par- 
ticular, the  structure  and  the  important  functions  of  this 
body ;  but  to  suppose  that  the  Senate,  or  any  department 
of  this  Government,  was  intended  to  be  the  only  guardian  of 
the  reserved  rights,  is  a  great  and  fundamental  mistake. 
The  Government,  through  all  its  departments,  represents  the 
delegated,  and  not  the  reserved  powers ;  and  it  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  fundamental  principle  of  free  institutions  to  sup- 
pose that  any  but  the  responsible  representative  of  any 
interest  can  be  its  guardian.  The  distribution  of  the  powers 
of  the  General  Government,  and  its  organization,  were 
arranged  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  power  in  fulfilling  the 


SPEECHES.  257 

important  trusts  confided  to  it,  and  not,  as  preposterously 
supposed,  to  protect  the  reserved  powers,  which  are  confided 
wholly  to  the  guardianship  of  the  several  States. 

Against  the  view  of  our  system  which  I  have  presented, 
and  the  right  of  the  States  to  interpose,  it  is  objected  that 
it  would  lead  to  anarchy  and  dissolution.  I  consider  the 
objection  as  without  the  slightest  foundation ;  and  that,  so 
far  from  tending  to  weakness  or  disunion,  it  is  the  source 
of  the  highest  power  and  of  the  strongest  cement.  Nor  is 
its  tendency  in  this  respect  difficult  of  explanation.  The 
government  of  an  absolute  majority,  unchecked  by  efficient 
constitutional  restraints,  though  apparently  strong,  is,  in 
reality,  an  exceedingly  feeble  government.  That  tendency 
to  conflict  between  the  parts,  which  I  have  shown  to  be 
inevitable  in  such  governments,  wastes  the  powers  of  the 
state  in  the  hostile  action  of  contending  factions,  which 
leaves  very  little  more  power  than  the  excess  of  the  strength 
of  the  majority  over  the  minority.  But  a  government  based 
upon  the  principle  of  the  concurring  majority,  where  each  great 
interest  possesses  within  itself  the  means  of  self-protection, 
which  ultimately  requires  the  mutual  consent  of  all  the 
parts,  necessarily  causes  that  unanimity  in  council,  and 
ardent  attachment  of  all  the  parts  to  the  whole,  which  give 
an  irresistible  energy  to  a  government  so  constituted.  I 
might  appeal  to  history  for  the  truth  of  these  remarks,  of 
which  the  Boman  furnishes  the  most  familiar  and  striking 
proofs.  It  is  a  well-known  fact,  that,  from  the  expulsion  of 
the  Tarquins  to  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  tri- 
bunitian  power,  the  government  fell  into  a  state  of  the 
greatest  disorder  and  distraction,  and,  I  may  add,  corrup- 
tion. How  did  this  happen  ?  The  explanation  will  throw 
important  light  on  the  subject  under  consideration.  The 
community  was  divided  into  two  parts — the  Patricians  and 
the  Plebeians  ;  with  the  power  of  the  state  principally  in 
the  hands  of  the  former,  without  adequate  checks  to  protect 
VOL.  ii.- — 17 


258  SPEECHES. 

the  rights  of  the  latter.  The  result  was  as  might  be  ex- 
pected. The  patricians  converted  the  powers  of  the  govern- 
ment into  the  means  of  making  money,  to  enrich  themselves 
and  their  dependants.  They,  in  a  word,  had  their  Ameri- 
can system,  growing  out  of  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
government  and  condition  of  the  country.  This  requires 
explanation.  At  that  period,  according  to  the  laws  of 
nations,  when  one  nation  conquered  another,  the  lands  of  the 
vanquished  belonged  to  the  victor  ;  and,  according  to  the 
Roman  law,  the  lands  thus  acquired  were  divided  into  two 
parts — one  allotted  to  the  poorer  class  of  the  people,  and  the 
other  assigned  to  the  use  of  the  treasury, — of  which  the  patri- 
cians had  the  distribution  and  administration.  The  patri- 
cians abused  their  power  by  withholding  from  the  plebeians 
that  which  ought  to  have  been  allotted  to  them,  and  by 
converting  to  their  own  use  that  which  ought  to  have  gone 
to  the  treasury.  In  a  word,  they  took  to  themselves  the 
entire  spoils  of  victory, — and  had  thus  the  most  powerful 
motive  to  keep  the  state  perpetually  involved  in  war,  to  the 
utter  impoverishment  and  oppression  of  the  plebeians.  After 
resisting  the  abuse  of  power  by  all  peaceable  means,  and 
the  oppression  becoming  intolerable,  the  plebeians,  at  last, 
withdrew  from  the  city — they,  in  a  word,  seceded  ;  and 
to  induce  them  to  reunite,  the  patricians  conceded  to  them, 
as  the  means  of  protecting  their  separate  interests,  the  very 
power,  which  I  contend  is  necessary  to  protect  the  rights 
of  the  States,  but  which  is  now  represented  as  necessarily 
leading  to  disunion.  They  granted  to  them  the  right  of 
choosing  three  tribunes  from  among  themselves,  whose 
persons  should  be  sacred,  and  who  should  have  the  right  of 
interposing  their  veto,  not  only  against  the  passage  of  laws, 
but  even  against  their  execution — a  power  which  those,  who 
take  a  shallow  insight  into  human  nature,  would  pronounce 
inconsistent  with  the  strength  and  unity  of  the  state,  if  not 
utterly  impracticable  ;  yet  so  far  from  this  being  the  effect, 


259 

from  that  day  the  genius  of  Eome  became  ascendant,  and 
victory  followed  her  steps  till  she  had  established  an  almost 
universal  dominion.  How  can  a  result  so  contrary  to  all 
anticipation  be  'explained  ?  The  explanation  appears  to  me 
to  be  simple.  No  measure  or  movement  could  be  adopted 
without  the  concurring  assent  of  both  the  patricians  and 
plebeians,  and  each  thus  became  dependent  on  the  other  ; 
and,  of  consequence,  the  desire  and  objects  of  neither  could 
be  effected  without  the  concurrence  of  the  other.  To  obtain 
this  concurrence,  each  was  compelled  to  consult  the  good- 
will of  the  other,  and  to  elevate  to  office,  not  those  only  who 
might  have  the  confidence  of  the  order  to  which  they  be- 
longed, but  also  that  of  the  other.  The  result  was,  that 
men  possessing  those  qualities  which  would  naturally  com- 
mand confidence — moderation,  wisdom,  justice,  and  patriot- 
ism— were  elevated  to  office  ;  and  the  weight  of  their 
authority  and  the  prudence  of  their  counsel,  combined  with 
that  spirit  of  unanimity  necessarily  resulting  from  the  con- 
curring assent  of  the  two  orders,  furnish  the  real  explana- 
tion of  the  power  of  the  Roman  State,  and  of  that  extraordi- 
nary wisdom,  moderation,  and  firmness  which  in  so  remarkable 
a  degree  characterized  her  public  men.  I  might  illustrate 
the  truth  of  the  position  which  I  have  laid  down  by  a  refe- 
rence to  the  history  of  all  free  states  ancient  and  modern, 
distinguished  for  their  power  and  patriotism,  and  conclu- 
sively show,  not  only  that  there  was  not  one  which  had  not 
some  contrivance,  under  some  form,  by  which  the  concurring 
assent  of  the  different  portions  of  the  community  was  made 
necessary  in  the  action  of  government,  but  also  that  the 
virtue,  patriotism,  and  strength  of  the  state  were  in  direct 
proportion  to  the  perfection  of  the  means  of  securing  such 
assent. 

In  estimating  the  operation  of  this  principle  in  our 
system,  which  depends,  as  I  have  stated,  on  the  right  of 
interposition  on  the  part  of  a  State,  we  must  not  omit  to 


260  SPEECHES. 

take  into  consideration  the  amending  power,  by  which  new 
powers  may  be  granted,  or  any  derangement  of  the  system 
corrected,  by  the  concurring  assent  of  three-fourths  of  the 
States  ;  and  thus,  in  the  same  degree,  strengthening  the 
power  of  repairing  any  derangement  occasioned  by  the  eccen- 
tric action  of  a  State.  In  fact,  the  power  of  interposition, 
fairly  understood,  may  be  considered  in  the  light  of  an  appeal 
against  the  usurpations  of  the  General  Government,  the  joint 
agent  of  all  the  States,  to  the  States  themselves, — to  be 
decided  under  the  amending  power,  by  the  voice  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  States,  as  the  highest  power  known  under  the 
system.  I  know  the  difficulty,  in  our  country,  of  establish- 
ing the  truth  of  the  principle  for  which  I  contend,  though 
resting  upon  the  clearest  reason,  and  tested  by  the  universal 
experience  of  free  nations.  I  know  that  the  governments  of 
the  several  States,  which,  for  the  most  part,  are  constructed 
on  the  principle  of  the  absolute  majority,  will  be  cited 
as  an  argument  against  the  conclusion  to  which  I  have 
arrived  ;  but,  in  my  opinion,  the  satisfactory  answer  can  be 
given, — that  the  objects  of  expenditure  which  fall  within  the 
sphere  of  a  State  Government  are  few  and  inconsiderable,  so 
that  be  their  action  ever  so  irregular,  it  can  occasion  but 
little  derangement.  If,  instead  of  being  members  of  this 
great  confederacy,  they  formed  distinct  communities,  and 
were  compelled  to  raise  armies,  and  incur  other  expenses 
necessary  to  their  defence,  the  laws  which  I  have  laid  down 
as  necessarily  controlling  the  action  of  a  State  where  the 
will  of  an  absolute  and  unchecked  majority  prevailed,  would 
speedily  disclose  themselves  in  faction,  anarchy,  and  corrup- 
tion. Even  as  the  case  is,  the  operation  of  the  causes  to 
which  I  have  referred  is  perceptible  in  some  of  the  larger 
and  more  populous  members  of  the  Union,  whose  govern- 
ments have  a  powerful  central  action,  and  which  already  show 
a  strong  moneyed  tendency,  the  invariable  forerunner  of  cor- 
ruption and  convulsion. 


SPEECHES.  261 

But,  to  return  to  the  General  Government.  We  have 
now  sufficient  experience  to  ascertain  that  the  tendency  to 
conflict  in  its  action  is  between  the  southern  and  other  sec- 
tions. The  latter  having  a  decided  majority,  must  habitually 
be  possessed  of  the  powers  of  the  Government,  both  in  this 
and  in  the  other  House  ;  and,  being  governed  by  that  in- 
stinctive love  of  power  so  natural  to  the  human  breast,  they 
must  become  the  advocates  of  the  power  of  Government,  and 
in  the  same  degree  opposed  to  the  limitations  ;  while  the 
other  and  weaker  section  is  as  necessarily  thrown  on  the  side 
of  the  limitations.  One  section  is  the  natural  guardian  of 
the  delegated  powers,  and  the  other  of  the  reserved  ;  and  the 
struggle  on  the  side  of  the  former  will  be  to  enlarge  the 
powers,  while  that  on  the  opposite  side  will  be  to  restrain 
them  within  their  constitutional  limits.  The  contest  will,  in 
fact,  be  a  contest  between  power  and  liberty,  and  such  I 
consider  the  present — a  contest  in  which  the  weaker  section, 
with  its  peculiar  labor,  productions,  and  institutions,  has  at 
stake  all  that  can  be  dear  to  freemen.  Should  we  be  able  to 
maintain  in  their  full  vigor  our  reserved  rights,  liberty  and 
prosperity  will  be  our  portion ;  but  if  we  yield,  and  permit 
the  stronger  interest  to  concentrate  within  itself  all  the  pow- 
ers of  the  Government,  then  will  our  fate  be  more  wretched 
than  that  of  the  aborigines  whom  we  have  expelled.  In  this 
great  struggle  between  the  delegated  and  reserved  powers, 
so  far  from  repining  that  my  lot,  and  that  of  those  whom  I 
represent,  is  cast  on  the  side  of  the  latter,  I  rejoice  that  such 
is  the  fact ;  for,  though  we  participate  in  but  few  of  the 
advantages  of  the  Government,  we  are  compensated,  and 
more  than  compensated,  in  not  being  so  much  exposed  to  its 
corruptions.  Nor  do  I  repine  that  the  duty,  so  difficult  to  be 
discharged,  of  defending  the  reserved  powers  against  appa- 
rently such  fearful  odds,  has  been  assigned  to  us.  To 
discharge  it  successfully  requires  the  highest  qualities, 
moral  and  intellectual ;  and  should  we  perform  it  with  a 


262  SPEECHES. 

zeal  and  ability  proportioned  to  its  magnitude,  instead  of 
mere  planters,  our  section  will  become  distinguished  for 
its  patriots  and  statesmen.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if 
we  prove  unworthy  of  the  trust — if  we  yield  to  the  steady 
encroachments  of  power,  the  severest  calamity  and  most 
debasing  corruption  will  overspread  the  land.  Every  Southern 
man,  true  to  the  interests  of  his  section,  and  faithful  to  the 
duties  which  Providence  has  allotted  him,  will  be  for  ever 
excluded  from  the  honors  and  emoluments  of  this  Government, 
which  will  be  reserved  for  those  only  who  have  qualified 
themselves,  by  political  prostitution,  for  admission  into  the 
Magdalen  Asylum. 


SPEECH 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Webster,  on  the  Resolutions  respect- 
ing the  Rights  of  the  States,  delivered  in  the  Sen- 
ate, Feb.  26th,  1833. 

[THE  following  resolutions,  submitted  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  came  up  for 
consideration,  viz. : 

"Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  these 
United  States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  constitutional  compact,  to 
which  the  people  of  each  State  acceded  as  a  separate  and  sovereign 
community,  each  binding  itself  by  its  own  particular  ratification ;  and 
that  the  Union,  of  which  the  said  compact  is  the  bond,  is  a  union 
between  the  States  ratifying  the  same. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  thus  united  by 
the  constitutional  compact,  in  forming  that  instrument,  and  in  creating 
a  General  Government  to  carry  into  effect  the  objects  for  which  it  was 
formed,  delegated  to  that  Government,  for  that  purpose,  certain  definite 
powers,  to  be  exercised  jointly,  reserving,  at  the  same  time,  each  State 
to  itself,  the  residuary  mass  of  powers,  to  be  exercised  by  its  own  sep- 


SPEECHES.  263 

arate  government;  and  that,  whenever  the  General  Government 
assumes  the  exercise  of  powers  not  delegated  by  .he  compact,  its  acts 
are  unauthorized,  void,  and  of  no  effect ;  and  that  the  said  Government 
is  not  made  the  final  judge  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  since  that 
would  make  its  discretion,  and  not  the  constitution,  the  measure  of 
its  powers ;  but  that,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among  sovereign 
parties,  without  any  common  judge,  each  has  an  equal  'right  to  judge 
for  itself,  as  well  of  the  infraction,  as  of  the  mod^.  and  measure  of 
redress. 

"Resolved,  That  the  assertions  that  the  people  of  these  United 
States,  taken  collectively  as  individuals,  are  now,  or  ever  have  been, 
united  on  the  principle  of  the  social  compact,  and,  as  such,  are  now 
formed  into  one  nation  or  people,  or  that  they  have  ever  been  so 
united,  in  any  one  stage  of  their  political  existence ;  that  the  people 
of  the  several  States  composing  the  Union  have  not,  as  members 
thereof,  retained  their  sovereignty ;  that  the  allegiance  of  their  citizens 
has  been  transferred  to  the  General  Government;  that  they  have 
parted  with  the  right  of  punishing  treason  through  their  respective 
State  Governments ;  and  that  they  have  not  the  right  of  judging,  in 
the  last  resort,  as  to  the  extent  of  powers  reserved,  and,  of  consequence, 
of  those  delegated,  are  not  only  without  foundation  in  truth,  but  are 
contrary  to  the  most  certain  and  plain  historical  facts,  and  the  clearest 
deductions  of  reason ;  and  that  all  exercise  of  power  on  the  part  of  the 
General  Government,  or  any  of  its  departments,  deriving  authority 
from  such  erroneous  assumptions,  must  of  necessity  be  unconstitu- 
tional— must  tend  directly  and  inevitably  to  subvert  the  sovereignty  of 
the  States — to  destroy  the  federal  character  of  the  Union,  and  to  rear 
on  its  ruins  a  consolidated  government,  without  constitutional  check 
or  limitation,  which  must  necessarily  terminate  in  the  loss  of  lib- 
erty itself." 

Which,  being  read,  Mr.  Calhoun  said :] 

WHEN  the  bill  with  which  the  resolutions  are  connected 
was  under  discussion,  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr 
Webster)  thought  proper  to  give  his  remarks  a  personal 
bearing  in  reference  to  myself.  I  had  said  nothing  to  justify 
this  course  on  the  part  of  that  gentleman.  I  had,  it  is  true, 
denounced  the  bill  in  strong  language,  but  not  stronger  than 


264  SPEECHES. 

the  rules  which  govern  parliamentary  proceedings  permit  t 
nor  stronger  than  the  character  of  the  bill,  and  its  bearing  on 
the  State  which  it  is  my  honor  to  represent,  justified.  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  understand  what  motive  governed  the  Senator  in 
giving  a  personal  character  to  his  remarks.  If  he  intended 
any  thing  unkind — (here  Mr.  Webster  said,  audibly,  Certainly 
not ;  and  Mr.  C.  replied,  I  will  not,  then,  say  what  I  in- 
tended, if  such  had  been  his  motive) — but  still  I  must  be 
permitted  to  ask,  If  he  intended  nothing  unkind,  what  was 
the  object  of  the  Senator  ?  Did  he  design  to  strengthen  a 
cause  which  he  feels  to  be  weak,  by  giving  the  discussion  a 
personal  direction  ?  If  such  was  his  motive,  his  experience 
as  a  debater  ought  to  have  taught  him  that  it  was  one  of 
those  weak  devices  which  seldom  fail  to  react  on  those  who 
resort  to  them.  If  his  motive  was  to  acquire  popularity  by 
attacking  one  who  had  voluntarily,  and  from  a  sense  of  duty 
— from  a  deep  conviction  that  liberty  and  the  constitution 
-were  at  stake — had  identified  himself  with  an  unpopular 
question,  I  would  say  to  him  that  a  true  sense  of  dignity 
would  have  impelled  him  in  an  opposite  direction.  Among 
the  possible  motives  which  might  have  influenced  him,  there 
is  another,  to  the  imputation  of  which  he  is  exposed,  but 
which,  certainly,  I  will  not  attribute  to  him — a  desire  to 
propitiate  in  a  certain  high  quarter — a  quarter  in  which  he 
must  know  that  no  offering  could  be  more  acceptable  than 
the  immolation  of  the  character  of  him  who  now  addresses 
you.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  motive  of  the  Sen- 
ator, I  can  assure  him  that  I  will  not  follow  his  example.  I 
never  had  any  inclination  to  gladiatorial  exhibitions  in  the 
halls  of  legislation,  and  if  I  now  had,  I  certainly  would  not 
indulge  them  on  so  solemn  a  question — a  question  which,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  as  expressed 
in  debate,  involves  the  union  of  these  States — and  in  mine,  the 
liberty  and  the  constitution  of  the  country.  Before,  how- 
ever, I  conclude  these  prefatory  observations,  I  must  allude 


SPEECHES.  265 

to  the  remark  which  the  Senator  made  at  the  termination  of 
the  argument  of  my  friend  from  Mississippi  (Mr.  Poindexter). 
I  understood  the  Senator  to  say  that,  if  I  chose  to  put  at 
issue  his  character  for  consistency,  he  stood  prepared  to  vin- 
dicate his  course.  I  assure  the  Senator  that  I  have  no  idea 
of  calling  in  question  his  consistency,  or  that  of  any  other 
member  of  this  body.  It  is  a  subject  in  which  I  feel  no 
concern.  But  if  I  am  to  understand  the  remark  of  the  Sen- 
ator as  intended,  indirectly,  as  a  challenge  to  put  in  issue  the 
consistency  of  my  course  as  compared  with  his  own,  I  have  to 
say  that,  though  I  do  not  accept  it,  yet,  if  he  should  think 
proper  to  make  a  trial  of  character  on  that  or  any  other  point 
connected  with  our  public  conduct,  and  will  select  a  suitable 
occasion,  I  stand  prepared  to  vindicate  my  course,  as  com- 
pared with  his,  or  that  of  any  other  member  of  this  body,  for 
consistency  of  conduct,  purity  of  motive,  and  devoted  at- 
tachment to  the  country  and  its  institutions. 

Having  made  these  remarks,  which  have  been  forced  upon 
me,  I  shall  now  proceed  directly  to  the  subject  before  the 
Senate  ;  and,  in  order  that  it  may,  with  all  its  bearings,  be 
fully  understood,  I  must  go  back  to  the  period  at  which  I 
introduced  the  resolutions.  They  were  introduced  in  con- 
nection with  the  bill  which  has  passed  this  House,  and  is 
now  pending  before  the  other.  That  bill  was  couched  in 
general  terms,  without  naming  South  Carolina,  or  any  other 
State,  though  it  was  understood,  and  avowed  by  the  com- 
mittee, as  intended  to  act  directly  on  her. 

Believing  that  the  Government  had  no  right  to  use  force 
in  the  controversy,  and  that  the  attempt  to  introduce  it 
rested  upon  principles  utterly  subversive  of  the  constitution 
and  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  I  drew  up  the  resolutions, 
and  introduced  them  expressly  with  the  view  to  test  those 
principles,  with  a  desire  that  they  should  be  discussed  and 
voted  on  before  the  bill  came  up  for  consideration..  The 
majority  ordered  otherwise.  The  resolutions  were  laid  on 


266  SPEECHES. 

the  table,  and  the  bill  taken  up  for  discussion.  Under  this 
arrangement,  which,  it  was  understood,  originated  with  the 
committee  that  reported  the  bill,  I,  of  course,  concluded  that 
its  members  would  proceed  in  the  discussion,  and  explain 
the  principles  and  the  necessity  for  the  bill,  before  the 
other  Senators  would  enter  into  the  discussion,  and  par- 
ticularly those  from  South  Carolina.  Understanding,  how- 
ever, that,  by  the  arrangement  of  the  committee,  it  was 
allotted  to  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  to  close  the  discussion 
on  the  bill,  I  waited  to  the  last  moment,  in  expectation  of 
hearing  from  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  He  is  a 
member  of  the  committee.  But,  not  hearing  from  him,  I 
rose  to  speak  to  the  bill,  and,  as  soon  as  I  had  concluded, 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  arose — I  will  not  say  to 
reply  to  me — and  certainly  not  to  discuss  the  bill,  but  the 
resolutions,  which  had  been  laid  on  the  table,  as  I  have 
stated.  I  do  not  state  these  facts  in  the  way  of  complaint, 
but  in  order  to  explain  my  own  course.  The  Senator  having 
directed  his  argument  against  my  resolutions,  I  felt  myself 
compelled  to  seize  the  first  opportunity  to  call  them  up  from 
the  table,  and  to  assign  a  day  for  their  discussion,  in  the  hope 
not  only  that  the  Senate  would  hear  me  in  their  vindication, 
but  would  also  afford  me  an  opportunity  of  taking  the  sense 
of  this  body  on  the  great  principles  on  which  they  are  based. 
The  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  in  his  argument  against 
the  resolutions,  directed  his  attack  almost  exclusively  against 
the  first  ;  on  the  ground,  I  suppose,  that  it  was  the  basis  of 
the  other  two,  and  that,  unless  the  first  could  be  demolished, 
the  others  would  follow  of  course.  In  this  he  was  right. 
As  plain  and  as  simple  as  the  facts  contained  in  the  first  are, 
they  cannot  be  admitted  to  be  true  without  admitting  the 
doctrines  for  which  I,  and  the  State  I  represent,  contend. 
He  (Mr.  W.)  commenced  his  attack  with  a  verbal  criticism 
on  the  resolution,  in  the  course  of  which  he  objected  strongly 
to  two  words,  "constitutional"  and  "accede."  To  the  former, 


SPEECHES.  267 

on  the  ground  that  the  word,  as  used  (constitutional  compact), 
was  obscure — that  it  conveyed  no  definite  meaning — and  that 
the  constitution  was  a  noun-substantive,  and  not  an  adjec- 
tive. I  regret  that  I  have  exposed  myself  to  the  criticism 
of  the  Senator.  I  certainly  did  not  intend  to  use  any  ex- 
pression of  doubtful  sense,  and  if  I  have  done  so,  the  Senator 
must  attribute  it  to  the  poverty  of  my  language,  and  not  to 
design.  I  trust,  however,  that  the  Senator  will  excuse  me, 
when  he  comes  to  hear  my  apology.  In  matters  of  criticism, 
authority  is  of  the  highest  importance,  and  I  have  an  au- 
thority of  so  high  a  character,  in  this  case,  for  using  the 
expression  which  he  considers  so  obscure  and  so  unconstitu- 
tional, as  will  justify  me  even  in  his  eyes.  It  is  no  less  than 
the  authority  of  the  Senator  himself — given  on  a  solemn 
occasion  (the  discussion  on  Mr.  Foote's  resolution),  and 
doubtless  with  great  deliberation,  after  having  duly  weighed 
the  force  of  the  expression. 

[Here  Mr.  C.  read  from  Mr.  Webster's  speech,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Hayne, 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  delivered  January  26,  1830,  as 
follows :  ] 

"  The  domestic  slavery  of  the  South  I  leave  where  I  find  it— in  the 
hands  of  their  own  governments.  It  is  their  affair,  not  mine.  Nor  do 
I  complain  of  the  peculiar  effect  which  the  magnitude  of  that  population 
has  had  in  the  distribution  of  power  under  the  Federal  Government.  "We 
know,  Sir,  that  the  representation  of  the  States  in  the  other  House  is  not 
equal.  We  know  that  great  advantage,  in  that  respect,  is  enjoyed  by  the 
slaveholding  States ;  and  we  know,  too,  that  the  intended  equivalent  for 
that  advantage,  that  is  to  say,  the  imposition  of  direct  taxes  in  the  same 
ratio,  has  become  merely  nominal :  the  habit  of  the  Government  being 
almost  invariably  to  collect  its  revenues  from  other  sources  and  in  other 
modes.  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  complain,  nor  would  I  countenance  any 
movement  to  alter  this  arrangement  of  representation.  It  is  the  original 
bargain — the  compact — let  it  stand ;  let  the  advantage  of  it  be  fully  en- 
joyed. The  Union  itself  is  too  full  of  benefits  to  be  hazarded  in  propo- 
sitions for  changing  its  original  basis.  I  go  for  the  constitution  as  it  is. 
and  for  the  Union  as  it  is.  But  I  am  resolved  not  to  submit  in  silence  to 
accusations,  either  against  myself  individually,  or  against  the  North. 


268  SPEECHES. 

wholly  unfounded  and  unjust — accusations  which  impute  to  us  a  dispo- 
sition to  evade  the  CONSTITUTIONAL  COMPACT,  and  to  extend  the  power  of 
the  Government  over  the  internal  laws  and  domestic  condition  of  the 
States." 

It  will  be  seen,  by  this  extract,  that  the  Senator  not  only 
used  the  phrase  "  constitutional  compact,"  which  he  now  so 
much  condemns,  but,  what  is  still  more  important,  he  calls 
the  constitution  itself  a  compact — a  bargain  ;  which  con- 
tains important  admissions,  having  a  direct  and  powerful 
bearing  on  the  main  issue  involved  in  the  discussion,  as  will 
appear  in  the  sequel.  But,  strong  as  his  objection  is  to  the 
word  "  constitutional,"  it  is  still  stronger  to  the  word  "  ac- 
cede," which,  he  thinks,  has  been  introduced  into  the  resolu- 
tion with  some  deep  design,  as  I  suppose,  to  entrap  the  Sen- 
ate into  an  admission  of  the  doctrine  of  State  Eights. 
Here,  again,  I  must  shelter  myself  under  authority.  But  I 
suspect  the  Senator,  by  a  sort  of  instinct  (for  our  instincts 
often  strangely  run  before  our  knowledge),  had  a  prescience, 
which  would  account  for  his  aversion  for  the  word,  that  this 
authority  was  no  less  than  Thomas  Jefferson  himself,  the 
great  apostle  of  the  doctrines  of  State  Rights.  The  word 
was  borrowed  from  him.  It  was  taken  from  the  Kentucky 
Resolution,  as  well  as  the  substance  of  the  resolution  itself. 
But  I  trust  I  may  neutralize  whatever  aversion  the  author- 
ship of  this  word  may  have  excited  in  the  mind  of  the  Sen- 
ator, by  the  introduction  of  another  authority — that  of 
Washington  himself,  who,  in  his  speech  to  Congress,  speak- 
ing of  the  admission  of  North  Carolina  into  the  Union,  uses 
this  very  term,  which  was  repeated  by  the  Senate  in  their 
reply.  Yet,  in  order  to  narrow  the  ground  between  the  Sen- 
ator and  myself  as  much  as  possible,  I  will  accommodate  my- 
self to  his  strange  antipathy  against  the  two  unfortunate 
words,  by  striking  them  out  of  the  resolution,  and  substitut- 
ing in  their  place  those  very  words  which  the  Senator  him- 
self has  designated  as  constitutional  phrases.  In  the  place 


SPEECHES.  269 

of  that  abhorred  adjective  "  constitutional,"  I  will  insert  the 
very  noun-substantive  "  constitution  ; "  and  in  the  place  of 
the  word  "  accede/'  I  will  insert  the  word  "  ratify/'  which 
he  designates  as  the  proper  term  to  be  used. 

Let  us  now  see  how  the  resolution  stands,  and  how  it  will 
read  after  these  amendments.  Here  Mr.  C.  said  the  resolu- 
tion, as  introduced,  reads : 

/"      Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  compos- 
/  ing  these  United  States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  constitu- 
tional compact,  to  which  the  people  of  each  State  acceded 
as  a  separate  and  sovereign  community,  each  binding  itself 

its  own  particular  ratification  ;  and  that  the  Union,  of 
which  the  said  compact  is  a  bond,  is  a  union  between  the  States 
ratifying  the  same. 

As  proposed  to  be  amended : 

Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  compos-  . 
ing  these  United  States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  compact, 
under  the  title  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which 
the  people  of  each  State  ratified  as  a  separate  and  sovereign 
community,  each  binding  itself  by  its  own  particular  ratifica- 
tion ;  and  that  the  Union  of  which  the  said  compact  is  the 
bond,  is  a  union  between  the  States  ratifying  the  sam^rx 

Where,  Sir,  I  ask,  is  that  plain  case  of  revolution  ? 
Where  that  hiatus,  as  wide  as  the  globe,  between  the  prem- 
ises and  conclusion,  which  the  Senator  proclaimed  would  be 
apparent  if  the  resolution  was  reduced  into  constitutional 
language  ?  For  my  part,  with  my  poor  powers  of  concep- 
tion, I  cannot  perceive  the  slightest  difference  between  the 
resolution  as  first  introduced,  and  as  it  is  proposed  to  be 
amended  in  conformity  to  the  views  of  the  Senator.  And, 
instead  of  that  hiatus  between  the  premises  and  conclusion, 
which  seems  to  startle  the  imagination  of  the  Senator,  I  can 
perceive  nothing  but  a  continuous  and  solid  surface,  sufficient 
to  sustain  the  magnificent  superstructure  of  State  Eights. 
Indeed,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Senator's  vision  is  distorted 


270  SPEECHES. 

by  the  medium  through  which  he  views  every  thing  connected 
with  the  subject ;  and  that  the  same  distortion  which  has 
presented  to  his  imagination  this  hiatus,  as  wide  as  the  globe, 
where  not  even  a  fissure  exists,  also  presented  that  beautiful 
and  classical  image  of  a  strong  man  struggling  in  a  bog  with- 
out the  power  of  extricating  himself,  and  incapable  of  being 
aided  by  any  friendly  hand,  while,  instead  of  struggling  in  a 
bog,  he  stands  on  the  everlasting  rock  of  truth. 

Having  now  noticed  the  criticism  of  the  Senator,  I  shall 
proceed  to  meet  and  repel  the  main  assault  on  the  resolution. 
He  directed  his  attack  against  the  strong  point,  the  very 
horn  of  the  citadel  of  State  Eights.  The  Senator  clearly 
perceived  that,  if  the  constitution  be  a  compact,  it  was  im- 
possible to  deny  the  assertions  contained  in  the  resolutions,  or 
to  resist  the  consequences  which  I  had  drawn  from  them, 
and,  accordingly,  directed  his  whole  fire  against  that  point ; 
but,  after  so  vast  an  expenditure  of  ammunition,  not  the 
slightest  impression,  so  far  as  I  can  perceive,  has  been  made. 
But,  to  drop  the  simile,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the 
notes  which  I  took  of  what  the  Senator  said,  I  am  now  at  a 
loss  to  know  whether,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Senator,  our  con- 
stitution is  a  compact  or  not,  though  the  almost  entire  argu- 
ment of  the  Senator  was  directed  to  that  point.  At  one 
time  he  would  seem  to  deny  directly  and  positively  that  it 
was  a  compact,  while  at  another  he  would  appear,  in  lan- 
guage not  less  strong,  to  admit  that  it  was. 

I  have  collated  all  that  the  Senator  has  said  upon  this 
point ;  and,  that  what  I  have  stated  may  not  appear  exagge- 
rated, I  will  read  hi&  remarks  in  juxtaposition.  He  said  that 

"  The  constitution  means  a  government,  not  a  compact.  Not  a  consti- 
tutional compact,  but  a  government.  If  compact,  it  rests  on  plighted  faith, 
and  the  mode  of  redress  would  be  to  declare  the  whole  void.  States  may 
secede  if  a  league  or  compact." 

I  thank  the  Senator  for  these  admissions,  which  I  intend 


SPEECHES.  271 

to  use  hereafter.     (Here  Mr.  C.  proceeded  to  read  from  his 
notes.) 

"The  States  agreed  that  each  should  participate  in  the  sovereignty  of 
the  other." 

Certainly,  a  very  correct  conception  of  the  constitution ; 
but  when  did  they  make  that  agreement  but  by  the  consti- 
tution, and  how  could  they  agree  but  by  compact  ? 

"  The  system,  not  a  compact  between  States  in  their  sovereign  capa- 
city, hut  a  government  proper,  founded  on  the  adoption  of  the  people,  and 
creating  individual  relations  between  itself  and  the  citizens." 

This,  the  Senator  lays  down  as  a  leading,  fundamental  prin- 
ciple to  sustain  his  doctrine,  and,  I  must  say,  with  strange 
confusion  and  uncertainty  of  language  ;  not,  certainly,  to  be 
explained  by  any  want  of  command  of  the  most  appropriate 
words  on  his  part. 

"It  does  not  call  itself  a  compact,  but  a  constitution.  The  constituy 
tion  rests  on  compact,  but  it  is  no  longer  a  compact." 

I  would  ask,  To  what  compact  does  the  Senator  refer,  as 
that  on  which  the  constitution  rests  ?  Before  the  adoption 
of  the  present  constitution,  the  States  had  formed  but  one 
compact,  and  that  was  the  old  confederation ;  and,  certainly, 
the  gentleman  does  not  intend  to  assert  that  the  present 
constitution  rests  upon  that.  What,  then,  is  his  meaning  ? 
What  can  it  be,  but  that  the  constitution  itself  is  a  com- 
pact ?f  And  how  will  his  language  read,  when  fairly  inter- 
preted, but  that  the  constitution  was  a  compact,  but  is  no 
longer  a  compact  ?  It  had,  by  some  means  or  another, 
changed  its  nature,  or  become  defunct. 

He  nexts  states  that 

"  A  man  is  almost  untrue  to  his  country  who  calls  the  constitution  a 
compact." 

I  fear  the  Senator,  in  calling  it  "  a  compact,  a  bargain," 


272  SPEECHES. 

has  called  down  this  heavy  denunciation  on  his  own  head. 
He  finally  states  that 

"It  is  founded  on  compact,  but  not  a  compact  results  from  it."      "*'   •  . 

To  what  are  we  to  attribute  this  strange  confusion  of 
words  ?  The  Senator  has  a  mind  of  high  order,  and  per- 
fectly trained  to  the  most  exact  use  of  language.  No  man 
knows  better  the  precise  import  of  the  words  he  uses.  The 
difficulty  is  not  in  him,  but  in  his  subject.  He  who  under- 
takes to  prove  that  this  constitution  is  not  a  compact,  un- 
dertakes a  task  which,  be  his  strength  ever  so  great,  must 
oppress  him  by  its  weight.  Taking  the  whole  of  the  argu- 
ment of  the  Senator  together,  I  would  say  that  it  is  his  im- 
pression that  the  constitution  is  not  a  compact,  and  will  now 
proceed  to  consider  the  reason  which  he  has  assigned  for  this 
opinion. 

He  thinks  there  is  an  incompatibility  between  constitu- 
tion and  compact.  To  prove  this,  he  adduces  the  words 
"ordain  and  establish,"  contained  in  the  preamble  of  the 
constitution.  I  confess  I  am  not  capable  of  perceiving  in 
what  manner  these  words  are  incompatible  with  the  idea 
that  the  constitution  is  a  compact.  The  Senator  will  admit 
that  a  single  State  may  ordain  a  constitution  ;  and  where  is 
the  difficulty,  where  the  incompatibility,  of  two  States  con- 
curring in  ordaining  and  establishing  a  constitution  ?  As 
between  the  States  themselves,  the  instrument  would  be  a 
compact ;  but  in  reference  to  the  Government,  and  those  on 
whom  it  operates,  it  would  be  ordained  and  established — 
ordained  and  established  by  the  joint  authority  of  two,  instead 
of  the  single  authority  of  one. 

The  next  argument  which  the  Senator  advances  to  show 
that  the  language  of  the  constitution  is  irreconcilable  with 
the  idea  of  its  being  a  compact,  is  taken  from  that  portion 
of  the  instrument  which  imposes  prohibitions  on  the  author- 
ity of  the  States.  He  said  that  tlie_Janguage  used  in  im- 


SPEECHES.  273 

posing  the  prohibitions  is  the  language  of  a  superior  to  an 
inferior ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  was  not  the  language  of  a 
compact,  which  implies  the  equality  of  the  parties.  As  a 
proof,  the  Senator  cited  several  clauses  of  the  constitution 
which  provide  that  no  State  shall  enter  into  treaties  of 
alliance  and  confederation,  lay  imposts,  &c.,  without  the  as- 
sent of  Congress.  If  he  had  turned  to  the  articles  of  the 
old  confederation,  which  he  acknowledges  to  have  been  a 
compact,  he  would  have  found  that  those  very  prohibitory 
articles  of  the  constitution  were  borrowed  from  that  instru- 
ment ;  that  the  language  which  he  now  considers  as  imply- 
ing superiority  was  taken  verbatim  from  it.  If  he  had  ex- 
tended his  researches  still  further,  he  would  have  found  that 
it  is  the  habitual  language  used  in  treaties,  whenever  a 
stipulation  is  made  against  the  performance  of  any  ac 
Among  many  instances  which  I  could  cite  if  it  were  neces- 
sary, I  refer  the  Senator  to  the  celebrated  treaty  negotiated 
by  Mr.  Jay  with  Great  Britain  in  1793,,  in  which  the  very 
language  used  in  the  constitution  is  employed. 

To  prove  that  the  constitution  is  not  a  compact,  the 
Senator  next  observes  that  it  stipulates  nothing,  and  asks, 
with  an  air  of  triumph,  Where  are  the  evidences  of  the 
stipulations  between  the  States  ?  I  must  express  my  sur- 
prise at  this  interrogatory,  coming  from  so  intelligent  a 
source.  Has  the  Senator  never  seen  the  ratifications  of  the 
constitution  by  the  several  States  ?  Did  he  not  cite  them 
on  this  very  occasion  ?  Do  they  contain  no  evidence  of 
stipulations  on  the  part  of  the  States  ?  Nor  is  the  assertion 
less  strange  that  the  constitution  contains  no  stipulations. 
So  far  from  regarding  it  in  the  light  in  which  the  Senator 
regards  it,  I  consider  the  whole  instrument  but  a  mass  of 
stipulations.  What  is  that  but  a  stipulation  to  which  the 
Senator  refers  when  he  states,  in  the  course  of  his  argument, 
that  each  State  had  agreed  to  participate  in  the  sovereignty 
of  the  others. 

VOL.   II. — 18 


Jut  the  principal  argument  on  which  the  Senator  relied  to 
low  that  the  constitution  is  not  a  compact,  rests  on  the 
provision  in  that  instrument  which  declares  that  "  this  con- 
stitution, and  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  treaties 
made  under  their  authority,  are  the  supreme  laws  of  the 
land."  He  asked,  with  marked  emghasis,  Can  a  compact  be 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ?  I  ask,  in  return,  whether 
treaties  are  not  compacts,  and  whether  treaties,  as  well  as 
the  constitution,  are  not  declared  to  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land  ?\  His  argument,  in  fact,  as  conclusively  proves 
that  treaties  are  not  compacts  as  that  the  constitution  is  not 
a  compact.  I  might  rest  the  issue  on  this  decisive  answer ; 
but,  as  I  desire  to  leave  not  a  shadow  of  doubt  on  this  im- 
portant point,  I  shall  follow  the  gentleman  in  the  course  of 
his  reasoning. 

He  defines  a  constitution  to  be  a  fundamental  law,  which 
organizes  the  government,  and  points  out  the  mode  of  its 
action.  I  will  not  object  to  the  definition,  though,  in  my 
opinion,  a  more  appropriate  one,  or,  at  least,  one  better 
adapted  to  American  ideas,  could  be  given.  My  objection  is 
not  to  the  definition,  but  to  the  attempt  to  prove  that  the 
fundamental  laws  of  a  State  cannot  be  a  compact,  as  the 
Senator  seems  to  suppose.  I  hold  the  very  reverse  to  be  the 
case  ;  and  that,  according  to  the  most  approved  writers  on 
the  subject  of  government,  these  very  fundamental  laws  which 
are  now  stated  not  only  not  to  be  compacts,  but  inconsistent 
with  the  very  idea  of  compacts,  are  held  invariably  to  be  com- 
pacts ;  and,  in  that  character,  are  distinguished  from  the 
ordinary  laws  of  the  country./  I  will  cite  a  single  authority, 
which  is  full  and  explicit  on  this  point,  from  a  writer  of  the 
highest  repute. 

Burlamaqui  says,  vol.  ii.,  part  1,  chap  i.,  sees.  35,  36, 
37,  38  : 

fc'It  entirely  depends  upon  a  free  people  to  invest  the  sovereigns 
whom  they  place  over  their  heads  with  an  authority  either  absolute  or 


SPEECHES.  275 

limited  by  certain  laws.  These  regulations,  by  which  the  supreme  au- 
thority is  kept  within  bounds,  are  called  the  fundamental  laws  of  the 
state." 

"  The  fundamental  laws  of  a  state,  taken  in  their  full  extent,  are  not 
only  the  decrees  by  which  the  entire  body  of  the  nation  determine  the  form 
of  government,  and  the  manner  of  succeeding  to  the  crown,  but  are  like- 
wise covenants  between  the  people  and  the  person  on  whom  they  confer 
the  sovereignty,  which  regulate  the  manner  of  governing,  and  by  which 
the  supreme  authority  is  limited." 

"  These  regulations  are  called  fundamental  laws,  because  they  are  the 
basis,  as  it  were,  and  foundation  of  the  state  on  which  the  structure  of  the 
government  is  raised,  and  because  the  people  look  upon  these  regulations 
as  their  principal  strength  and  support." 

"  The  name  of  laws,  however,  has  been  given  to  these  regulations  in  an 
improper  and  figurative  sense,  for,  properly  speaking,  they  are  real  cove- 
nants. But  as  those-  covenants  are  obligatory  between  the  contracting 
parties,  they  have  the  force  of  laws  themselves." 

The  same,  vol.  ii.,  part  2,  ch.  i.,  sees.  19  and  22,  in  part. 

"  The  whole  body  of  the  nation,  in  whom  the  supreme  power  originally 
resides,  may  regulate  the  government  by  a  fundamental  law  in  such  man- 
ner as  to  commit  the  exercise  of  the  different  parts  of  the  supreme  power 
to  different  persons  or  bodies,  who  may  act  independently  of  each  other  in 
regard  to  the  rights  committed  to  them,  but  still  subordinate  to  the  laws 
from  which  those  rights  are  derived." 

"  And  these  fundamental  laws  are  real  covenants,  or  what  the  civilians 
call  pacta  conventa,  between  the  different  orders  of  the  republic,  by 
which  they  stipulate  that  each  shall  have  a  particular  part  of  the  sover- 
eignty, and  that  this  shall  establish  the  form  of  government.  It  is  evi- 
dent that,  by  these  means,  each  of  the  contracting  parties  acquires  a  right 
not  only  of  exercising  the  power  granted  to  it,  but  also  of  preserving  that 
original  right." 

A  reference  to  the  constitution  of  Great  Britain,  with 
which  we  are  better  acquainted  than  with  that  of  any  other 
European  government,  will  show  that  that  is  a  compact. 
Magna  Charta  may  certainly  be  reckoned  among  the  funda- 
mental laws  of  that  kingdom.  Now,  although  it  did  not  as- 
sume, originally,  the  form  of  a  compact,  yet,  before  the 
breaking  up  of  the  meeting  of  the  barons  which  imposed  it 


276  SPEECHES. 

on  King  John,  it  was  reduced  into  the  form  of  a  covenant 
and  duly  signed  by  Eobert  Fitzwalter  and  others,  on  the  one 
part,  and  the  king  on  the  other. 

But  we  have  a  more  decisive  proof  that  the  constitution 
of  England  is  a  compact  in  the  resolution  of  the  Lords  and 
Commons  in  1688,  which  declared  that : — 

"  King  James  the  Second  having  endeavored  to  subvert  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  kingdom,  by  breaking  the  original  contract  between  the  king 
and  people,  and  having,  by  the  advice  of  Jesuits  and  other  wicked  per- 
sons, violated  the  fundamental  law,  and  withdrawn  himself  out  of  the 
kingdom,  hath  abdicated  the  government,  and  that  the  throne  is  thereby 
become  vacant." 

But  why  should  I  refer  to  writers  upon  the  subject  of 
government,  or  inquire  into  the  constitution  of  foreign  states, 
when  there  are  such  decisive  proofs  that  our  constitution  is 
a  compact  ?  On  this  point  the  Senator  is  estopped.  I 
borrow  from  the  gentleman,  and  thank  him  for  the  word. 
His  adopted  State,  which  he  so  ably  represents  on  this  floor, 
and  his  native  State,  the  States  of  Massachusetts  and  New 
Hampshire,  both  declared,  in  their  ratification  of  the  consti- 
tution, that  it  was  a  compact.  The  ratification  of  Massa- 
chusetts is  in  the  following  words  : 

s  [Here  Mr-  c-  read  0 

"  In  Convention  of  the  Delegates  of  the  People  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts,  February  6,  1788. 

"The  Convention  having  impartially  discussed  and  fully  considered 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America,  reported  to  Congress 
by  the  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
submitted  to  us  by  a  resolution  of  the  General  Court  of  said  Common- 
wealth, passed  the  25th  day  of  October  last  past,  and  acknowledging,  with 
grateful  hearts,  the  goodness  of  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  Universe,  in 
affording  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  the  course  of  his  providence, 
an  opportunity  deliberately  and  peaceably,  without  fraud  or  surprise,  of 
entering  into  an  explicit  and  SOLEMN  COMPACT  with  each  other,  by  assent- 
ing to  and  ratifying  a  new  Constitution,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union,  establish  justice,  ensure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  com- 


SPEECHES.  277 

mon  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of 
liberty  to  themselves  and  of  Massachusetts,  assent  to  and  ratify  the  said 
Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America." 

The  ratification  of  New  Hampshire  is  taken  from  that  of 
Massachusetts,  and  almost  in  the  same  words.  But  proof, 
if  possible,  still  more  decisive,  may  be  found  in  the  celebra- 
ted resolutions  of  Virginia  on  the  alien  and  sedition  law,  in 
1798,  and  the  responses  of  Massachusetts  and  the  other 
States.  Those  resolutions  expressly  assert  that  the  consti- 
tution is  a  compact  between  the  States,  in  the  following 
language : 

[Here  Mr.  C.  read  from  the  resolutions  of  Virginia  as  follows  :] 
"  That  this  Assembly  doth  explicitly  and  peremptorily  declare,  that  it 

VIEWS  THE  POWERS  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT,  AS  RESULTING  FROM 
THE  COMPACT,  TO  WHICH  THE  STATES  ARE  PARTIES,  AS  LIMITED  BY  THE 
PLAIN  SENSE  AND  INTENTION  OF  THE  INSTRUMENT  CONSTITUTING  THAT 
COMPACT,  AS  NO  FARTHER  VALID  THAN  THEY  ARE  AUTHORIZED  BY  THE 
GRANTS  ENUMERATED  IN  THAT  COMPACT;  AND  THAT,  IN  CASE  OF  A  DE- 
LIBERATE, PALPABLE,  AND  DANGEROUS  EXERCISE  OF  OTHER  POWERS  NOT 
GRANTED  BY  THE  SAID  COMPACT,  THE  STATES  WHO  ARE  PARTIES  THERETO 
HAVE  THE  RIGHT,  AND  ARE  IN  DUTY  BOUND,  TO  INTERPOSE  FOR  ARREST- 
ING THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  EVIL,  AND  FOR  MAINTAINING  WITHIN  THEIR 
RESPECTIVE  LIMITS  THE  AUTHORITIES,  RIGHTS,  AND  LIBERTIES  APPERTAIN- 
ING TO  THEM. 

"  That  the  General  Assembly  doth  also  express  its  deep  regret  that  a 
spirit  has,  in  sundry  instances,  been  manifested  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment to  enlarge  its  powers  by  forced  constructions  of  the  constitutional 
charter,  which  defines  them ;  and  that  indications  have  appeared  of  a  de- 
sign to  expound  certain  general  phrases  (which,  having  been  copied  from 
the  very  limited  grant  of  powers  in  the  former  articles  of  confederation, 
were  the  less  liable  to  be  misconstrued),  so  as  to  destroy  the  meaning  and 
effect  of  the  particular  enumeration  which  necessarily  explains,  and  limits 
the  general  phrases,  and  so  as  to  CONSOLIDATE  THE  STATES,  BY  DEGREES, 

INTO  ONE  SOVEREIGNTY,  THE  OBVIOUS  TENDENCY  AND  INEVITABLE  RESULT 
OF  WHICH  WOULD  BE,  TO  TRANSFORM  THE  PRESENT  REPUBLICAN  SYSTEM 

OF   THE  UNITED   STATES   INTO   AN   ABSOLUTE,   OR,   AT   BEST,  A  MIXED 

MONARCHY."         *~~ 

They  were  sent  to  the  several  States.     We  have  the  re- 


278  SPEECHES. 

ply  of  Delaware,  New- York,  Connecticut,  New  Hampshire, 
Vermont,  and  Massachusetts,  not  one  of  which  contradicts 
this  important  assertion  on  the  part  of  Virginia  ;  and,  by 
their  silence,  they  all  acquiesce  in  its  truth.  The  case  is 
still  stronger  against  Massachusetts,  which  expressly  recog- 
nizes the  fact  that  the  constitution  is  a  compact. 
In  her  answer  she  says : 

[Here  Mr.  C.  read  from  the  answer  of  Massachusetts  as  follows :] 

"  But  they  deem  it  their  duty  solemnly  to  declare  that,  while  they 
hold  sacred  the  principle,  that  consent  of  the  people  is  the  only  pure 
source  of  just  and  legitimate  power,  they  cannot  admit  the  right  of  the 
State  Legislatures  to  denounce  the  administration  of  that  Government,  to 
which  the  people  themselves,  by  a  solemn  compact,  have  exclusively  com- 
mitted their  national  concerns.  That,  although  a  liberal  and  enlightened 
vigilance  among  the  people  is  always  to  be  cherished,  yet  an  unreasonable 
jealousy  of  the  men  of  their  choice,  and  a  recurrence  to  measures  of  ex- 
tremity upon  groundless  or  trivial  pretexts,  have  a  strong  tendency  to 
destroy  all  rational  liberty  at  home,  and  to  deprive  the  United  States  of 
the  most  essential  advantages  in  their  relations  abroad.  That  this  Legis- 
lature are  persuaded  that  the  decision  of  all  cases  in  law  or  equity,  arising 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  construction  of  all 
laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  are  exclusively  vested  by  the  people  in 
the  judicial  courts  of  the  United  States." 

"  That  the  people,  in  that  solemn  compact,  which  is  declared  to  be 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  have  not  constituted  the  State  Legislatures 
the  judges  of  the  acts  or  measures  of  the  Federal  Government,  but  have 
confided  to  them  the  power  of  proposing  such  amendments  of  the  consti- 
tution as  shall  appear  to  them  necessary  to  the  interests,  or  conformable 
to  the  wishes,  of  the  people  whom  they  represent." 

Now  I  ask  the  Senator  himself — I  put  it  to  his  candor  to 
say,  if  South  Carolina  be  estopped  on  the  subject  of  the 
protective  system,  because  Mr.  Burke  and  Mr.  Smith  pro- 
posed a  moderate  duty  on  hemp,  or  some  other  article,  I 
know  not  what,  nor  do  I  care,  with  a  view  of  encouraging  its 
production  (of  which  motion,  I  venture  to  say,  not  one  indi- 
vidual in  a  hundred  in  the  State  ever  heard),  whether  he 
and  Massachusetts,  after  this  clear,  full,  and  solemn  recog- 


SPEECHES.  279 

nition  that  the  constitution  is  a  compact  (both  on  his  part 
and  that  of  his  State),  be  not  for  ever  estopped  on  this  im- 
portant point  ?  ^ 

There  remains  one  more  of  the  Senator's  arguments,  to  \ 
••prove  that  the  constitution  is  not  a  compact,  to  be  con- 
sidered. He  says  it  is  not  a  compact,  because  it  is  a  govern-  ' 
ment ;  which  he  defines  to  be  an  organized  body,  possessed 
of  the  will  and  power  to  execute  its  purposes  by  its  own 
proper  authority  ;  and  which,  he  says,  bears  not  the  slightest 
resemblance  to  a  compact.  But  I  would  ask  the  Senator, 
Who  ever  considered  a  government,  when  spoken  of  as  the 
agent  to  execute  the  powers  of  the  constitution,  and  distinct 
from  the  constitution  itself,  as  a  compact  ?  In  that  light  it 
would  be  a  perfect  absurdity.  It  is  true  that,  in  general 
and  loose  language,  it  is  often  said  that  the  Government  is  a 
compact,  meaning  the  constitution  which  created  it,  and 
vested  it  with  authority  to  execute  the  powers  contained  in 
the  instrument ;  but  Avhen  the  distinction  is  drawn  between 
the  constitution  and  the  Government,  as  the  Senator  has 
done,  it  would  be  as  ridiculous  to  call  the  Government  a 
compact,  as  to  call  an  individual,  appointed  to  execute  the 
provisions  of  a  contract,  a  contract ;  and  not  less  so  to  sup- 
pose that  there  could  be  the  slightest  resemblance  between 
them.  In  connection  with  this  point,  the  Senator,  to  prove 
that  the  constitution  is  not  a  compact,  asserts  that  it  is 
wholly  independent  of  the  State,  and  pointedly  declares  that 
the  States  have  not  a  right  to  touch  a  hair  of  its  head  ;  and 
this,  with  that  provision  in  the  constitution  that  three- 
fourths  of  the  States  have  a  right  to  alter,  change,  amend, 
or  even  to  abolish  it,  staring  him  in  the  face. 

I  have  examined  all  of  the  arguments  of  the  Senator 
intended  to  prove  that  the  constitution  is  not  a  compact ; 
and  I  trust  I  have  shown,  by  the  clearest  demonstration, 
that  his  arguments  are  perfectly  inconclusive,  and  that  his 
assertion  is  against  the  clearest  and  most  solemn  evidence — 


280  SPEECHES. 

evidence  of  record,  and  of  such  a  character  that  it  ought  to 
close  his  lips  for  ever. 

I  turn  now  to  consider  the  other,  and,  apparently,  contra- 
dictory aspect  in  which  the  Senator  presented  this  part  of 
the  subject :  I  mean  that  in  which  he  states  that  the  Gov- 
ernment is  founded  in  compact,  but  is  no  longer  a  compact. 
I  have  already  remarked,  that  no  other  interpretation  could 
be  given  to  this  assertion,  except  that  the  constitution  was 
once  a  compact,  but  is  no  longer  so.  There  was  a  vagueness 
and  indistinctness  in  this  part  of  the  Senator's  argument, 
which  left  me  altogether  uncertain  as  to  its  real  meaning. 
If  he  meant,  as  I  presume  he  did,  that  the  compact  is  an 
executed,  and  not  an  executory  one — that  its  object  was  to 
create  a  government,  and  to  invest  it  with  proper  authority 
— and  that,  having  executed  this  office,  it  had  performed  its 
functions,  and,  with  it,  had  ceased  to  exist,  then  we  have  the 
extraordinary  avowal  that  the  constitution  is  a  dead  letter — 
that  it  has  ceased  to  have  any  binding  effect,  or  any  practical 
influence  or  operation. 

It  has,  indeed,  often  been  charged  that  the  constitution 
has  become  a  dead  letter  ;  that  it  is  continually  violated,  and 
has  lost  all  its  control  over  the  Government ;  but  no  one  has 
ever  before  been  bold  enough  to  advance  a  theory  on  the 
avowed  basis  that  it  was  an  executed,  and,  therefore,  an 
extinct  instrument.  I  will  not  seriously  attempt  to  refute 
an  argument,  which,  to  me,  appears  so  extravagant.  I 
had  thought  that  the  constitution  was  to  endure  for  ever ; 
and  that,  so  far  from  its  being  an  executed  contract,  it  con- 
tained great  trust  powers  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  created 
it,  and  of  all  future  generations, — which  never  could  be 
finally  executed  during  the  existence  of  the  world,  if  our 
Government  should  so  long  endure. 

I  will  now  return  to  the  first  resolution,  to  see  how  the 
issue  stands  between  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  and 
myself.  It  contains  three  propositions.  First,  that  the 


SPEECHES.  281 

constitution  is  a  compact ;  second,  that  it  was  formed  by 
the  States,  constituting  distinct  communities  ;  and,  lastly, 
that  it  is  a  subsisting  and  binding  compact  between  the 
States.  How  do  these  three  propositions  now  stand  ?  The 
first,  I  trust,  has  been  satisfactorily  established  ;  the  second, 
the  Senator  has  admitted,  faintly,  indeed,  but  still  he  has 
admitted  it  to  be  true.  This  admission  is  something.  It  is 
so  much  gained  by  discussion.  Three  years  ago  even  this 
was  a  contested  point.  But  I  cannot  say  that  I  thank  him 
for  the  admission  :  we.owe  it  to  the  force  of  truth.  The  fact 
that  these  States  were  declared  to  be  free  and  independent 
States  at  the  time  of  their  independence  ;  that  they  were 
acknowledged  to  be  so  by  Great  Britain  in  the  treaty  which 
terminated  the  war  of  the  Kevolution,  and  secured  their  in- 
dependence ;  that  they  were  recognized  in  the  same  character 
in  the  old  articles  of  the  confederation  ;  and,  finally,  that 
the  present  constitution  was  formed  by  a  convention  of  the 
several  States — afterwards  submitted  to  them  for  their  re- 
spective ratifications,  and  was  ratified  by  them  separately, 
each  for  itself,  and  each,  by  its  own  act,  binding  its  citizens, 
— formed  a  body  of  facts  too  clear  to  be  denied,  and  too 
strong  to  be  resisted. , 

It  now  remains  to  consider  the  third  and  last  proposition 
contained  in  the  resolution — that  it  is  a  binding  and  a  sub- 
sisting compact  between  the  States.  The  Senator  was  not 
explicit  on  this  point.  I  understood  him,  however,  as  assert- 
ing that,  though  formed  by  the  States,  the  constitution  was 
not  binding  between  the  States  as  distinct  communities,  but 
between  the  American  people  in  the  aggregate ;  who,  in 
consequence  of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  according 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Senator,  became  one  people,  at  least 
to  the  extent  of  the  delegated  powers.  This  would,  indeed, 
be  a  great  change.  All  acknowledge  that,  previous  to  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  the  States  constituted  distinct 
and  independent  communities,  in  full  possession  of  their 


282  SPEECHES. 

sovereignty ;  and,  surely,  if  the  adoption  of  the  constitu- 
tion was  intended  to  effect  the  great  and  important  change 
in  their  condition  which  the  theory  of  the  Senator  supposes, 
some  evidence  of  it  ought  to  be  found  in  the  instrument 
itself.  It  professes  to  be  a  careful  and  full  enumeration  of 
all  the  powers  which  the  States  delegated,  and  of  every 
modification  of  their  political  condition.  The  Senator  said 
that  he  looked  to  the  constitution  in  order  to  ascertain  its 
real  character ;  and,  surely,  he  ought  to  look  to  the  same 
instrument  in  order  to  ascertain  what  changes  were,  in  fact, 
made  in  the  political  condition  of  the  States  and  the  country. 
But,  with  the  exception  of  "  we,  the  people  of  the  United 
States,"  in  the  preamble,  he  has  not  pointed  out  a  single 
indication  in  the  constitution,  of  the  great  change  which,  as 
he  conceives,  has  been  effected  in  this  respect/ 

Now,  Sir,  I  intend  to  prove,  that  the  only  argument  on 
which  the  gentleman  relies  on  this  point,  must  utterly  fail 
him.  I  do  not  intend  to  go  into  a  critical  examination  of 
the  expression  of  the  preamble  to  which  I  have  referred.  I 
do  not  deem  it  necessary.  But  if  it  were,  it  might  be  easily 
shown  that  it  is  at  least  as  applicable  to  my  view  of  the 
constitution  as  to  that  of  the  Senator  ;  and  that  the  whole 
of  his  argument  on  this  point  rests  on  the  ambiguity  of  the 
term  thirteen  United  States  ;  which  may  mean  certain  ter- 
ritorial limits,  comprehending  within  them  the  whole  of  the 
States  and  Territories  of  the  Union.  In  this  sense,  the 
people  of  the  United  States  may  mean  all  the  people  living 
within  these  limits,  without  reference  to  the  States  or  Terri- 
tories in  which  they  may  reside,  or  of  which  they  may  be 
citizens ;  and  it  is  in  this  sense  only  that  the  expression 
gives  the  least  countenance  to  the  argument  of  the  Senator. 

But  it  may  also  mean,  the  States  united,  which  inversion 
alone,  without  further  explanation,  removes  the  ambiguity 
to  which  I  have  referred.  The  expression,  in  this  sense, 
obviously  means  no  more  than  to  speak  of  the  people  of  the 


SPEECHES.  283 

several  States  in  their  united  and  confederated  capacity  ; 
and,  if  it  were  requisite,  it  might  be  shown  that  it  is  only  in 
this  sense  that  the  expression  is  used  in  the  constitution. 
But  it  is  not  necessary.  A  single  argument  will  for  ever 
settle  this  point.  ^  Whatever  may  be  the  true  meaning  of 
the  expression,  it  is  not  applicable  to  the  condition  of  the 
States  as  they  exist 'under  the  constitution,  but  as  it  was 
under  the  old  confederation,  before  its  adoption.  The  consti- 
tution had  not  yet  been  adopted,  and  the  States,  in  ordaining 
it,  could  only  speak  of  themselves  in  the  condition  in  which 
they  then  existed,  and  not  in  that  in  which  they  would  exist, 
under  the  constitution.)/  So  that,  if  the  argument  of  the 
Senator  proves  any  thing,  it  proves,  not  (as  he  supposes)  that 
the  constitution  forms  the  American  people  into  an  aggregate 
mass  of  individuals,  but  that  such  was  their  political  con- 
dition before  its  adoption,  under  the  old  confederation,  di- 
rectly contrary  to  his  argument  in  the  previous  part  of  this 
discussion. 

But  I  intend  not  to  leave  this  important  point,  the  last 
refuge  of  those  who  advocate  consolidation,  even  on  this  con- 
clusive argument.  I  have  shown  that  the  constitution 
affords  not  the  least  evidence  of  the  mighty  change  of  the 
political  condition  of  the  States  and  the  country,  which  the 
Senator  supposed  it  effected  ;  and  I  intend  now,  by  the  most 
decisive  proof,  drawn  from  the  Instrument  itself,  to  show 
that  no  such  change  was  intended,  and  that  the  people  of 
the  States  are  united  under  it  as  States  and  not  as  individ- 
uals/ On  this  point  there  is  a  very  important  part  of  the 
constitution  entirely  and  strangely  overlooked  by  the  Senator 
in  this  debate,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  first  resolution,  which 
furnishes  conclusive  evidence  not  only  that  the.,  constitution 
is  a  compact,  but  a  subsisting  compact,  binding  between  the 
States.  I  allude  to  the  seventh  article,  which  provides  that 
"  the  ratification  of  the  conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be 
sufficient  for  the  establishment  of  this  constitution  between 


284  SPEECHES. 

the  States  so  ratifying  the  same."  Yes,  "  between  the  States.'' 
These  little  words  mean  a  volume — compacts,  not  laws,  bind 
between  States ;  and  it  here  binds,  not  as  between  individuals, 
but  between  the  States :  the  States  ratifying  ;  implying,  as 
strong  as  language  can  make  it,  that  the  constitution  is 
what  I  have  asserted  it  to  be — a  compact,  ratified  by  the 
States,  and  a  subsisting  compact,  binding  the  States  ratify- 
ing it./. 

But,  Sir,  I  will  not  leave  this  point,  all-important  in  es- 
tablishing the  true  theory  of  our  Government,  on  this  argu- 
ment alone,  as  demonstrative  and  conclusive  as  I  hold  it  to 
be.  Another,  not  much  less  powerful,  but  of  a  different 
character^  may  be  drawn  from  the  tenth  amended  article, 
which  provides  that  "  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States, 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively  or  to  the  people." 
The  article  of  ratification,  which  I  have  just  cited,  informs 
us  that  the  constitution,  which  delegates  powers,  was  ratified 
by  the  States,  and  is  binding  between  them.  This  informs 
us  to  whom  the  powers  are  delegated^ — a  most  important 
fact  in  determining  the  point  immediately  at  issue  between 
the  Senator  and  myself.  According  to  his  views,  the  consti- 
tution created  a  union  between  individuals,  if  the  solecism 
may  be  allowed,  and  that  it  formed,  at  least  to  the  extent  of 
the  powers  delegated,  one  people,  and  not  a  Federal  Union 
of  the  States,  as  I  contend ;  or,  to  express  the  same  idea 
differently,  that  the  delegation  of  powers  was  to  the  Ameri- 
can people  in  the  aggregate  (for  it  is  only  by  such  delega- 
tion that  they  could  be  constituted  one  people),  and  not  to 
the  United  States, — directly  contrary  to  the  article  just  cited, 
which  declares  that  the  powers  are  delegated  to  the  United 
States.  And  here  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  Senator 
cannot  shelter  himself  under  the  ambiguous  phrase,  "  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States,"  under  which  he  would  certain- 
ly have  taken  refuge,  had  the  constitution  so  expressed  it ; 


SPEECHES.  285 

but,  fortunately  for  the  cause  of  truth  and  the  great  princi- 
ples of  constitutional  liberty  for  which  I  am  contending, 
"people"  is  omitted  :  thus  making  the  delegation  of  power 
clear  and  unequivocal  to  the  United  States,  as  distinct  politi- 
cal communities,  and  conclusively  proving  that  all  the  pow- 
ers delegated  are  reciprocally  delegated  by  the  States  to  each 
other,  as  distinct  political  communities. 

So  much  for  the  delegated  powers.  Now,  as  all  admit, 
and  as  it  is  expressly  provided  for  in  the  constitution,  the  re- 
served powers  are  reserved  "  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to 
the  people."  None  will  pretend  that,  as  far  as  they  are  con- 
cerned, we  are  one  people,  though  the  argument  to  prove  it, 
however  absurd,  would  be  far  more  plausible  than  that  which 
goes  to  show  that  we  are  one  people  to  the  extent  of  the 
delegated  powers.  This  reservation  "to  the  people"  might, 
in  the  hands  of  subtle  and  trained  logicians,  be  a  peg  to 
hang  a  doubt  upon  ;  and  had  the  expression  "  to  the  people  " 
been  connected,  as  fortunately  it  is  not,  with  the  delegated 
instead  of  the  reserved  powers,  we  should  not  have  heard  of 
this  in  the  present  discussion.  ^ 

I  have  now  established,  I  hope,  beyond  the  power  oi\ 
controversy,  every  allegation  contained  in  the  first  resolu- 
tion— that  the  constitution  is  a  compact  formed  by  the  peo- 
ple of  the  several  States,  as  distinct  political  communities, 
and  subsisting  and  binding  between  the  States  in  the  same 
character;  which  brings  me  to  the  consideration  of  the 
consequences  which  may  be  fairly  deduced,  in  reference  to 
the  character  of  our  political  system,  from  these  established 
facts. 

The  first,  and  most  important  is,  they  conclusively  estab- 
lish that  Tour's  is  a  federal  system — a  system  of  States  ar- 
ranged in  a  Federal  Union,  each  retaining  its  distinct  exist- 
ence and  sovereignty^  Ours  has  every  attribute  which  be- 
longs to  a  federative  system.  It  is  founded  on  compact ;  it 
is  formed  by  sovereign  communities,  and  is  binding  between 


286  SPEECHES. 

them  in  their  sovereign  capacity./  I  might  appeal,  in  con- 
firmation of  this  assertion,  to  all  elementary  writers  on  the 
subject  of  government,  but  will  content  myself  with  citing 
one  only :  Burlamaqui,  quoted  with  approbation  by  Judge 
Tucker,  in  his  Commentary  on  Blackstone,  himself  a  high 
authority,  says : 

[Here  Mr.  C.  read  from  Tucker's  Blackstone  as  follows) : 

"  Political  bodies,  whether  great  or  small,  if  they  are  constituted  by  a 
people  formerly  independent,  and  under  no  civil  subjection,  or  by  those 
who  justly  claim  independence  from  any  civil  power  they  were  formerly 
subject  to,  have  the  civil  supremacy  in  themselves,  and  are  in  a  state  of 
equal  right  and  liberty  with  respect  to  all  other  States,  whether  great  or 
small.  No  regard  is  to  be  had  in  this  matter  to  names,  whether  the  body 
politic  be  called  a  kingdom,  an  empire,  a  principality,  a  dukedom,  a  coun- 
try, a  republic,  or  free  town.  If  it  can  exercise  justly  all  the  essential 
parts  of  civil  power  within  itself  independently  of  any  other  person  or 
body  politic, — and  no  other  hath  any  right  to  rescind  or  annul  its  acts, — it 
has  the  civil  supremacy,  how  small  soever  its  territory  may  be,  or  the 
number  of  its  people,  and  has  all  the  rights  of  an  Independent  State. 

"  This  independence  of  States,  and  their  being  distinct  political  bodies 
from  each  other,  is  not  obstructed  by  any  alliance  or  confederacies  what- 
soever, about  exercising  jointly  any  parts  of  the  supreme  powers,  such  as 
those  of  peace  and  war,  in  league  offensive  and  defensive.  Two  States, 
notwithstanding  such  treaties,  are  separate  bodies,  and  independent. 

"  These  are,  then,  only  deemed  politically  united  when  some  one  per- 
son or  council  is  constituted  with  a  right  to  exercise  some  essential  powers 
for  both,  and  to  hinder  either  from  exercising  them  separately.  If  any 
person  or  council  is  empowered  to  exercise  all  these  essential  powers  for 
both,  they  are  then  one  State :  such  is  the  State  of  England  and  Scotland, 
since  the  act  of  union  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
whereby  the  two  kingdoms  were  incorporated  into  one,  all  parts  of  the 
supreme  power  of  both  kingdoms  being  thenceforward  united,  and  vested 
.in  the  three  estates  of  the  realm  of  Great  Britain;  by  which  entire 
coalition,  though  both  kingdoms  retain  their  ancient  laws  and  usages 
in  many  respects,  they  are  as  effectually  united  and  incorporated  as  the 
several  petty  kingdoms  which  composed  the  heptarchy  were  before  that 
period. 

"  But  when  only  a  portion  of  the  supreme  civil  power  is  vested  in  one 
person  or  council  for  both,  such  as  that  of  peace  and  war,  or  of  deciding 
controversies  between  different  States,  or  their  subjects,  while  each  within 


SPEECHES.  287 

itself  exercises  other  parts  of  the  supreme  power,  independently  of  all  the 
others — in  this  case  they  are  called  Systems  of  States,  which  Burlamaqui 
defines  to  be  an  assemblage  of  perfect  governments,  strictly  united  by 
some  common  bond,  so  that  they  seem  to  make  but  a  single  body  with 
respect  to  those  affairs  which  interest  them  in  common,  though  each  pre- 
serves its  sovereignty,  full  and  entire,  independently  of  all  others.  And 
in  this  case,  he  adds,  the  confederate  States  engage  to  each  other  only  to 
exercise  with  common  consent  certain  parts  of  the  sovereignty,  especially 
that  which  relates  to  their  mutual  defence  against  foreign  enemies.  But 
each  of  the  confederates  retains  an  entire  liberty  of  exercising  as  it  thinks 
proper  those  parts  of  the  sovereignty  which  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
treaty  of  union,  as  parts  that  ought  to  be  exercised  in  common.  And  of 
this  nature  is  the  American  confederacy,  in  which  each  State  has  resigned 
the  exercise  of  certain  parts  of  the  supreme  civil  power  which  they  possessed 
before  (except  in  common  with  the  other  States  included  in  the  confedera- 
cy), reserving  to  themselves  all  their  former  powers,  which  are  not  dele- 
gated to  the  United  States  by  the  common  bond  of  union. 

"  A  visible  distinction,  and  not  less  important  than  obvious,  occurs  to 
our  observation  in  comparing  these  different  kinds  of  union.  The  king- 
doms of  England  and  Scotland  are  united  into  one  kingdom  ;  and  the  two 
contracting  States,  by  such  an  incorporate  union,  are,  in  the  opinion  of 
Judge  Blackstone,  totally  annihilated,  without  any  power  of  revival ;  and 
a  third  arises  from  their  conjunction,  in  which  all  the  rights  of  sovereign- 
ty, and  particularly  that  of  legislation,  are  vested.  From  whence  he  ex- 
presses a  doubt  whether  any  infringements  of  the  fundamental  and  essen- 
tial conditions  of  the  union  would  of  itself  dissolve  the  union  of  those 
kingdoms ;  though  he  readily  admits  that,  in  the  case  of  a  federate  alli- 
ance, such  an  infringement  would  certainly  rescind  the  compact  between 
the  confederated  States.  In  the  United  States  of  America,  on  the  contra- 
ry, each  State  retains  its  own  antecedent  form  of  government ;  its  own 
laws,  subject  to  the  alteration  and  control  of  its  own  legislature  only ;  its 
own  executive  officers  and  council  of  State ;  its  own  courts  of  judicature, 
its  own  judges,  its  own  magistrates,  civil  officers,  and  officers  of  the  mi- 
litia ;  and,  in  short,  its  own  civil  state,  or  body  politic,  in  every  respect 
whatsoever.  And  by  the  express  declaration  of  the  12th  article  of  the 
amendments  to  the  constitution,  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved 
to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  people.  In  Great  Britain,  a  new  civil 
state  is  created  by  the  annihilation  of  two  antecedent  civil  states ;  in  the 
American  States,  a  general  federal  council  and  administration  is  provided 
for  the  joint  exercise  of  such  of  their  several  powers  as  can  be  more  con- 
veniently exercised  in  that  mode  than  any  other,  leaving  their  civil  state 


288  SPEECHES. 

unaltered ;  and  all  the  other  powers,  which  the  States  antecedently  pos- 
sessed, to  be  exercised  by  them  respectively,  as  if  no  union  or  connection 
were  established  between  them. 

"  The  ancient  Achaia  seems  to  have  been  a  confederacy  founded  upon  a 
similar  plan ;  each  of  those  little  States  had  its  distinct  possessions,  terri- 
tories, and  boundaries ;  each  had  its  Senate  or  Assembly,  its  magistrates 
and  judges ;  and  every  State  sent  deputies  to  the  general  convention,  and 
had  equal  weight  in  all  determinations.  And  most  of  the  neighboring 
States  which,  moved  by  fear  of  danger,  acceded  to  this  confederacy,  had 
reason  to  felicitate  themselves. 

"  These  confederacies,  by  which  several  States  are  united  together  by 
a  perpetual  league  of  alliance,  are  chiefly  founded  upon  this  circumstance, 
that  each  particular  people  choose  to  remain  their  own  masters,  and  yet 
are  not  strong  enough  to  make  head  against  a  common  enemy.  The  pur- 
port of  such  an  agreement  usually  is,  that  they  shall  not  exercise  some 
part  of  the  sovereignty  there  specified  without  the  general  consent  of  each 
other.  For  the  leagues,  to  which  these  systems  of  States  owe  their  rise, 
seem  distinguished  from  others  (so  frequent  among  different  States)  chiefly 
by  this  consideration,  that,  in  the  latter,  each  confederate  people  deter- 
mine themselves,  by  their  own  judgment,  to  certain  mutual  performances, 
yet  so  that  in  all  other  respects  they  design  not  in  the  least  to  make  the 
exercise  of  that  part  of  the  sovereignty,  whence  these  performances  pro- 
ceed, dependent  on  the  consent  of  their  allies,  or  to  retrench  any  thing 
from  their  full  and  unlimited  power  of  governing  their  own  States.  Thus 
we  see  that  ordinary  treaties  propose,  for  the  most  part,  as  their  aim,  only 
some  particular  advantage  of  the  States  thus  transacting — their  interests 
happening  at  present  to  fall  in  with  each  other — but  do  not  produce  any 
lasting  union  as  to  the  chief  management  of  affairs.  Such  was  the  treaty 
of  alliance  between  America  and  France  in  the  year  1778,  by  which, 
among  other  articles,  it  was  agreed  that  neither  of  the  two  parties  should 
conclude  either  truce  or  peace  with  Great  Britain  without  the  formal  con- 
sent of  the  other  first  obtained,  and  whereby  they  mutually  engaged  not 
to  lay  down  their  arms  until  the  independence  of  the  United  States  should 
be  formally  or  tacitly  assured  by  the  treaty  or  treaties  which  should  ter- 
minate the  war.  Whereas,  in  these  confederacies,  of  which  we  are  now 
speaking,  the  contrary  is  observable,  they  being  established  with  this  de- 
sign, that  the  several  States  shall  for  ever  link  their  safety  one  with  an- 
other, and,  in  order  to  their  mutual  defence,  shall  engage  themselves  not 
to  exercise  certain  parts  of  their  sovereign  power,  otherwise  than  by  a 
common  agreement  and  approbation.  Such  were  the  stipulations,  among 
others,  contained  in  the  articles  of  confederation  and  perpetual  union  be- 
tween American  States,  by  which  it  was  agreed  that  no  State  should. 


SPEECHES.  289 

without  the  consent  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  send  any 
embassy  to,  or  receive  any  embassy  from,  or  enter  into  any  conference, 
agreement,  alliance,  or  treaty  with,  any  King,  Prince,  or  State ;  nor  keep 
up  any  vessels  of  war,  or  body  of  forces,  in  time  of  peace ;  nor  engage  in 
any  war,  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled, 
unless  actually  invaded  j  nor  grant  commissions  to  any  ships  of  war,  or 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  except  after  a  declaration  of  war  by  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  with  several  others ;  yet  each  State 
respectively  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  and  every 
power,  jurisdiction,  and  right  which  is  not  expressly  delegated  to  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled.  The  promises  made  in  these  two 
cases  here  compared  run  very  differently ;  in  the  former,  thus :  '  I  will 
join  you  in  this  particular  war  as  a  confederate,  and  the  manner  of  our 
attacking  the  enemy  shall  be  concerted  by  our  common  advice ;  nor  will 
we  desist  from  war  till  the  particular  end  thereof,  the  establishment  of 
the  independence  of  the  United  States,  be  obtained.'  In  the  latter,  thus : 
'  None  of  us  who  have  entered  into  this  alliance  will  make  use  of  our 
right  as  to  the  affairs  of  war  and  peace,  except  by  the  general  consent  of 
the  whole  confederacy.'  We  observed  before  that  these  unions  submit 
only  some  certain  parts  of  the  sovereignty  to  mutual  direction ;  for  it 
seems  hardly  possible  that  the  affairs  of  different  States  should  have  so 
close  a  connection,  as  that  all  and  each  of  them  should  look  on  it  as 
their  interest  to  have  no  part  of  the  chief  government  exercised  with- 
out the  general  concurrence.  The  most  convenient  method,  therefore, 
seems  to  be,  that  the  particular  States  reserve  to  themselves  all  those 
branches  of  the  supreme  authority,  the  management  of  which  can  have 
little  or  no  influence  in  the  affairs  of  the  rest." 

[Mr.  Calhoun  proceeded :] 

If  we  compare  our  present  system  with  the  old  confede- 
ration, which  all  acknowledge  to  have  been  federal  in  its 
character,  we  shall  find  that  it  possesses  all  the  attributes 
which  belong  to  that  form  of  government  as  fully  and  com- 
pletely as  that  did.  In  fact,  in  this  particular,  there  is  but 
a  single  difference,  and  that  not  essential,  as  regards  the 
point  immediately  under  consideration,  though  very  impor- 
tant in  other  respects.  The  confederation  was  the  act  of  the 
State  governments,  and  formed  a  union  of  governments. 
The  present  constitution  is  the  act  of  the  States  themselves, 
or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  of  the  people  of  the  several 
VOL.  n.— 19 


290  SPEECHES. 

States,  and  forms  a  union  of  them  as  sovereign  communities. 
The  States,  previous  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution, 
were  as  separate  and  distinct  political  bodies  as  the  govern- 
ments which  represent  them,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  na- 
ture of  things  to  prevent  them  from  uniting  under  a  compact, 
in  a  federal  union,  without  being  blended  in  one  mass,  any 
more  than  uniting  the  governments  themselves,  in  like  man- 
ner, without  merging  them  in  a  single  government.  To  il- 
lustrate what  I  have  stated  by  reference  to  ordinary  trans- 
actions, the  confederation  was  a  contract  between  agents — 
the  present  constitution  a  contract  between  the  principals 
themselves^  or,  to  take  a  more  analogous  case,  one  is  a 
league  made  by  ambassadors ;  the  other,  a  league  made  by 
sovereigns — the  latter  no  more  tending  to  unite  the  parties 
into  a  single  sovereignty  than  the  former.  The  only  difference 
is  in  the  solemnity  of  the  act  and  the  force  of  the  obligation. 
There,  indeed,  results  a  most  important  difference,  un- 
our  theory  of  government,  as  to  the  nature  and  character 
of  the  act  itself,  whether  executed  by  the  States  themselves, 
or  by  their  governments ;  but  a  result,  as  I  have  already 
stated,  not  at  all  affecting  the  question  under  consideration, 
but  which  will  throw  much  light  on  a  subject,  in  relation  to 
which,  I  must  think  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has 
formed  very  confused  conceptions. 

The  Senator  dwelt  much  on  the  point  that  the  present 
system  is  a  constitution  and  a  government,  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  the  old  confederation,  with  a  view  of  proving  that  the 
constitution  was  not  a  compact.  Now,  I  concede  to  the  Sen- 
ator that  our  present  system  is-  a  constitution  and  a  govern- 
ment ;  and  that  the  former,  the  old  confederation,  was  not 
a  constitution  or  government :  not,  however,  for  the  reason 
which  he  assigned,  that  the  former  was  a  compact,  and  the 
latter  not,  but  from  the  difference  of  the  origin  from  which 
the  two  compacts  are  derived.  According  to  our  American 
conception,  the  people  alone  can  form  constitutions  or  gov- 


SPEECHES.  291 

ernments,  and  not  their  agents.  It  is  this  difference,  and 
this  alone,  which  makes  the  distinction.  ^  Had  the  old  con- 
federation  been  the  act  of  the  people  of  the  several  States, 
and  not  of  their  governments,  that  instrument,  imperfect  as 
it  was,  would  have  been  a  constitution,  and  the  agency 
which  it  created  to  execute  its  powers,  a  government.  This  is 
the  true  cause  of  the  difference  between  the  two  acts,  and  not 
that,  in  regard  to  which  the  Senator  seems  to  be  bewildered. 

There  is  another  point  on  which  this  difference  throws 
important  light,  and  which  has  been  frequently  referred  to 
in  debate  on  this  and  former  occasions.  I  refer  to  the  ex- 
pression in  the  preamble  of  the  constitution,  which  speaks 
of  "forming  a  more  perfect  union,"  and  in  the  letter  of 
General  Washington,  laying  the  draught  of  the  Convention 
before  the  old  Congress,  in  which  he  speaks  of  "  consolidating 
the  Union  ; "  both  of  which  I  conceive  to  refer  simply  to  the 
fact  that  the  present  Union,  as  already  stated,  is  a  union 
between  the  States  themselves,  and  not  a  union  like  that 
which  had  existed  between  the  governments  of  the  States. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  consider  some  of  the  conclusitms 
which  necessarily  follow  from  the  facts  and  positions  already 
established.  They  enable  us  to  decide  a  question  of  vital 
importance  under  our  system :  Where  does  sovereignty  re- 
side ?  If  I  have  succeeded  in  establishing  the  fact  that  ours 
is  a  federal  system,  as  I  conceive  I  conclusively  have,  that 
fact  of  itself  determines  the  question  which  I  have  proposed. 
It  is  of  the  very  essence  of  such  a  system,  that  the  sovereignty 
is  in  the  parts,  and  not  in  the  whole  y  or,  to  use  the  language 
of  Mr.  Palgrave,  the  parts  are  the  units  in  such  a  system, 
and  the  whole  the  multiple ;  and  not  the  whole  the  unit 
and  the  parts  the  fractions.  [Ours,  then,  is  a  government  of 
twenty-four  sovereignties,  united  by  a  constitutional  compact, 
for  the  purpose  of  exercising  certain  powers  through  a  com- 
mon government  as  their  joint  agent,  and  not  a  union  of  the 
twenty-four  sovereignties  into  one,l  which,  according  to  the 


292  SPEECHES. 

language  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  already  cited,  would 
form  a  consolidation.^  And  here  I  must  express  my  surprise 
that  the  Senator  from  Virginia  should  avow  himself  the  ad- 
vocate of  these  very  resolutions,  when  he  distinctly  maintains 
the  idea  of  a  union  of  the  States  in  one  sovereignty,  which 
is  expressly  condemned  by  those  resolutions  as  the  essence  of 
a  consolidated  government. 

Another  consequence  is  equally  clear,  that,  whatever  mod- 
ifications were  made  in  the  condition  of  the  States  under  the 
present  constitution,  they  extended  only  to  the  exercise  of 
their  powers  by  compact,  and  not  to  the  sovereignty  itself, 
and  are  such  as  sovereigns  are  competent  to  make  :  it  being 
a  conceded  point,  that  it  is  competent  to  them  to  stipulate  to 
exercise  their  powers  in  a  particular  manner,  or  to  abstain 
altogether  from  their  exercise,  or  to  delegate  them  to  agents, 
without  in  any  degree  impairing  sovereignty  itselfl/  The 
plain  state  of  the  facts,  as  regards  our  Government,  is,  that 
these  States  have  agreed  by  compact  to  exercise  their  sover- 
eign powers  jointly,  as  already  stated  ;  and  that,  for  this 
purpose,  they  have  ratified  the  compact  in  their  sovereign 
capacity,  thereby  making  it  the  constitution  of  each  State, 
in  nowise  distinguished  from  their  own  separate  constitutions, 
but  in  the  superadded  obligation  of  compact — of  faith  mu- 
tually pledged  to  each  other.  In  this  compact,  they  have 
stipulated,  among  other  things,  that  it  may  be  amended  by 
three-fourths  of  the  States :  that  is,  they  have  conceded  to 
each  other  by  compact  the  right  to  add  new  powers  or  to 
subtract  old,  by  the  consent  of  that  proportion  of  the  States, 
without  requiring,  as  otherwise  would  have  been  the  case, 
the  consent  of  all  y  a  modification  no  more  inconsistent,  as 
has  been  supposed,  with  their  sovereignty,  than  any  other 
contained  in  the  compact.  In  fact,  the  provision  to  which  I 
allude  furnishes  strong  evidence  that  the  sovereignty  is,  as  I 
contend,  in  the  States  severally,  as  the  amendments  are 
effected,  not  by  any  one  three-fourths,  but  by  any  three- 


SPEECHES.  293 

fourths  of  the  States,  indicating  that  the  sovereignty  is  in 
each  of  the  States. 

If  these  views  be  correct,  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  the  allegiance  of  the  people  is  to  their  several  States, 
and  that  treason  consists  in  resistance  to  the  joint  authority 
of  the  States  united,  not,  as  has  been  absurdly  contended,  in 
resistance  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  which,  by 
the  provision  of  the  constitution,  has  only  the  right  of  pun- 
ishing. 

These  conclusions  have  all  a  most  important  bearing  on 
that  monstrous  and  despotic  bill  which,  to  the  disgrace  of 
the  Senate  and  the  age,  has  passed  this  body.  (  I  have  still  a 
right  thus  to  speak  without  violating  the  rules  of  order,  as  it 
is  not  yet  a  law.  ^/These  conclusions  show  that  the  States  can 
violate  no  law  ;  that  they  neither  are,  nor,  in  the  nature  of 
things  can  be  under  the  dominion  of  the  law ;  that  the  worst 
that  can  be  imputed  to  them  is  a  violation  of  compact,  for 
which  they,  and  not  their  citizens,  are  responsible  ;  and  that, 
to  undertake  to  punish  a  State  by  law,  or  to  hold  the  citizens 
responsible  for  the  acts  of  the  State,  which  they  are  on  their 
allegiance  bound  to  obey,  and  liable  to  be  punished  as  traitors 
for  disobeying,  is  a  cruelty  unheard  of  among  civilized  na- 
tions, and  destructive  of  every  principle  upon  which  our 
Government  is  founded.  It  is,  in  short,  a  ruthless  and  com- 
plete revolution  of  our  entire  system-/ 

I  was  desirous  to  present  these  views  fully  before  the 
passage  of  this  long-to-be-lamented  bill,  but  as  I  was  pre- 
vented by  the  majority,  as  I  have  stated  at  the  commence- 
ment of  my  remarks,  I  trust  that  it  is  not  yet  too  late. 

Having  now  said  what  I  intended  in  relation  to  my  first 
resolution,  both  in  reply  to  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts, 
and  in  vindication  of  its  correctness,  I  will  now  proceed  to 
considerjhe  conclusions  drawn  from  it  in  the  second  resolu- 
tion-^that  the  General  Government  is  not  the  exclusive  and 
final  judge  of  the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  but 


294  SPEECHES. 

that  the  States,  as  parties  to  the  compact,  have  a  right  to 
judge,  in  the  last  resort,  of  the  infractions  of  the  compact, 
and  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

It  can  scarcely  be  necessary,  before  so  enlightened  a  body, 
to  premise  that  our  system  comprehends  two  distinct  govern- 
ments— the  General  and  State  Governments,  which,  prop- 
erly considered,  form  but  one.  The  former  representing  the 
joint  authority  of  the  States  in  their  confederate  capacity, 
and  the  latter  that  of  each  State  separately.  I  have  pre- 
mised this  fact  simply  with  a  view  of  presenting  distinctly 
the  answer  to  the  argument  offered  by  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  to  prove  that  the  General  Government  has  a 
final  and  exclusive  right  to  judge,  not  only  of  its  delegated 
powers,  but  also  of  those  reserved  to  the  States.  That  gen- 
tleman relies  for  his  mam  argument  on  the  assertion  that  a 
government,  which  he  defines  to  be  an  organized  body, 
endowed  with  both  will,  and  power,  and  authority  in  proprio 
vigore  to  execute  its  purpose,  has  a  right  inherently  to  judge 
of  its  powers.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  comment  upon  tho 
definition  of  the  Senator,  though  it  would  not  be  difficult  to 
show  that  his  ideas  of  government  are  not  very  American. 
My  object  is  to  deal  with  the  conclusion,  and  not  the  defi- 
nition. Admit,  then,  that  the  Government  has  the  right  of 
judging  of  its  powers,  for  which  he  contends.  How,  then, 
will  he  withhold,  upon  his  own  principle,  the  right  of  judging 
from  the  State  Governments,  which  he  has  attributed  to  the 
General  Government  ?  If  it  belongs  to  one,  on  his  principle 
it  belongs  to  both  ;  and  if  to  both,  when  they  differ,  the  veto, 
so  abhorred  by  the  Senator,  is  the  necessary  result :  as  neither, 
if  the  right  be  possessed  by  both,  can  control  the  other. 

The  Senator  felt  the  force  of  this  argument,  and,  in  order 
to  sustain  his  main  position,  he  fell  back  on  that  clause  of 
the  constitution  which  provides  that  "  this  constitution,  and 
the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land." 


SPEECHES.  295 

This  is  admitted — no  one  has  ever  denied  that  the  con- 
stitution, and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it,  are  of  para- 
mount authority.  But  it  is  equally  undeniable  that  laws  not 
made  in  pursuance  are  not  only  not  of  paramount  authority, 
but  are  of  no  authority  whatever,  being  of  themselves  null 
and  void ;  which  presents  the  question.  Who  are  to  judge 
whether  the  laws  be  or  be  not  pursuant  to  the  constitution  ? 
and  thus  the  difficulty,  instead  of  being  taken  away,  is  re- 
moved but  one  step  further  back.  This  the  Senator  also  felt, 
and  has  attempted  to  overcome,  by  setting  up,  on  the  part  of 
Congress  and  the  judiciary,  the  final  and  exclusive  right  of 
judging,  both  for  the  Federal  Government  and  the  States,  as 
to  the  extent  of  their  respective  powers.  That  I  may  do  full 
justice  to  the  gentleman,  I  will  give  his  doctrine  in  his  own 
words.  He  states, 

"  That  there  is  a  supreme  law,  composed  of  the  constitution,  the  laws 
passed  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  the  treaties ;  but  in  cases  coming  before 
Congress,  not  assuming  the  shape  of  cases  in  law  and  equity,  so  as  to  be 
subjects  of  judicial  discussion,  Congress  must  interpret  the  constitution  so 
often  as  it  has  occasion  to  pass  laws ;  and  in  cases  capable  of  assuming  a 
judicial  shape,  the  Supreme  Court  must  be  the  final  interpreter." 

Now,  passing  over  this  vague  and  loose  phraseology,  I 
would  ask  the  Senator  upon  what  principle  can  he  concede 
this  extensive  power  to  the  legislative  and  judicial  depart- 
ments, and  withhold  it  entirely  from  the  Executive  ?  If  one 
has  the  right  it  cannot  be  withheld  from  the  other.  I  would 
also  ask  him  on  what  principle — if  the  departments  of  the 
General  Government  are  to  possess  the  right  of  judging, 
finally  and  conclusively,  of  their  respective  powers — on  what 
principle  can  the  same  right  be  withheld  from  the  State 
Governments,  which,  as  well  as  the  General  Government, 
properly  considered,  are  but  departments  of  the  same  general 
system,  and  form  together,  properly  speaking,  but  one  gov- 
ernment ?  This  was  a  favorite  idea  of  Mr.  Macon,  for  whose 
wisdom  I  have  a  respect  increasing  with  my  experience, 


296  SPEECHES. 

and  who  I  have  frequently  heard  say,  that  most  of  the  mis- 
conceptions and  errors  in  relation  to  our  system  originated 
in  forgetting  that  they  were  but  parts  of  the  same  system. 
I  would  further  tell  the  Senator,  that,  if  this  right  be  with- 
held from  the  State  Governments  ;  if  this  restraining  influ- 
ence, by  which  the  General  Government  is  confined  to  its 
proper  sphere,  be  withdrawn,  then  that  department  of  the 
Government  from  which  he  has  withheld  the  right  of  judg- 
ing of  its  own  powers  (the  Executive)  will,  so  far  from  being 
excluded,  become  the  sole  interpreter  of  the  powers  of  the 
Government.  It  is  the  armed  interpreter,  with  powers  to 
execute  its  own  construction,  and  without  the  aid  of  which 
the  construction  of  the  other  departments  will  be  impo- 
tent. 

But  I  contend  that  the  States  have  a  far  clearer  right 
to  the  sole  construction  of  their  powers  than  any  of  the 
departments  of  the  Federal  Government  can  have.  This 
power  is  expressly  reserved,  as  I  have  stated  on  another 
occasion,  not  only  against  the  several  departments  of  the 
General  Government,  but  against  the  United  States  them- 
selves. I  will  not  repeat  the  arguments  which  I  then  offered 
on  this  point,  and  which  remain  unanswered,  but  I  must  be 
permitted  to  offer  strong  additional  proof  of  the  views  then 
taken,  and  which,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  are  conclusive  on 
this  point.  It  is  drawn  from  the  ratification  of  the  consti- 
tution by  Virginia,  and  is  in  the  following  words. 

[Mr.  C.  then  read  as  follows :] 

"  We,  the  delegates  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  duly  elected  in  pursuance 
of  a  recommendation  from  the  General  Assembly,  and  now  met  in  Con- 
vention, having  fully  and  freely  investigated  and  discussed  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Federal  Convention,  and  being  prepared,  as  well  as  the  most 
mature  deliberation  hath  enabled  us,  to  decide  thereon,  do,  in  the  name 
and  in  behalf  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  declare  and  make  known  that  the 
powers  granted  under  the  constitution^,  being  derived  from  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  may  be  resumed  by  them  whensoever  the  same  shall 
be  perverted  to  their  injury  or  oppression,  and  that  every  power  not 


SPEECHES.  297 

granted  thereby  remains  with  them,  and  at  their  will ;  that,  therefore,  no 
right  of  any  denomination  can  be  cancelled,  abridged,  restrained,  or  mod- 
ified by  the  Congress,  by  the  Senate  or  House  of  Representatives,  acting 
in  any  capacity,  by  the  President  or  any  department  or  officer  of  the 
United  States,  except  in  those  instances  in  which  power  is  given  by  the 
constitution  for  those  purposes ;  and  that,  among  other  essential  rights, 
the  liberty  of  conscience  and  of  the  press  cannot  be  cancelled,  abridged, 
restrained,  or  modified  by  any  authority  of  the  United  States.  With 
these  impressions,  with  a  solemn  appeal  to  the  Searcher  of  all  hearts  for 
the  purity  of  our  intentions,  and  under  the  conviction  that  whatsoever 
imperfections  may  exist  in  the  constitution  ought  rather  to  be  examined 
in  the  mode  prescribed  therein,  than  to  bring  the  Union  in  danger  by  a 
delay,  with  the  hope  of  obtaining  amendments  previous  to  the  ratification 
— we,  the  said  delegates,  in  the  name  and  in  the  behalf  of  the  people  of 
Virginia,  do,  by  these  presents,  assent  to  and  ratify  the  constitution  recom- 
mended on  the  17th  day  of  September,  1787,  by  the  Federal  Convention, 
for  the  government  of  the  United  States,  hereby  announcing  to  all  those 
whom  it  may  concern,  that  the  said  constitution  is  binding  upon  the  said 
people,  according  to  an  authentic  copy  hereto  annexed,  in  the  words  fol- 
lowing," &c. 

It  thus  appears  that  this  sagacious  State  (I  fear,  how- 
ever, that  her  sagacity  is  not  so  sharpsighted  now  as  for- 
merly) ratified  the  constitution,  with  an  explanation  as  to 
her  reserved  powers ;  that  they  were  powers  subject  to  her 
own  will,  and  reserved  against  every  department  of  the 
General  Government — legislative,  executive  and  judicial — 
as  if  she  had  a  prophetic  knowledge  of  the  attempts  now 
made  to  impair  and  destroy  them  :  which  explanation  can 
be  considered  in  no  other  light  than  as  containing  a  condition 
on  which  she  ratified,  and,  in  fact,  making  part  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States — extending  as  well  to  the 
other  States  as  herself.  I  am  no  lawyer,  and  it  may  appear 
to  be  presumption  in  me  to  lay  down  the  rule  of  law  which 
governs  in  such  cases,  in  a  controversy  with  so  distinguished 
an  advocate  as  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  But  I 
shall  venture  to  lay  it  down  as  a  rule  in  such  cases,  which 
I  have  no  fear  that  the  gentleman  will  contradict,  that,  in 
case  of  a  contract  between  several  partners,  if  the  entrance 


298  SPEECHES. 

of  one  on  condition  be  admitted,  the  condition  enures  to 
the  benefit  of  all  the  partners.  But  I  do  not  rest  the  argu- 
ment simply  upon  this  view :  Virginia  proposed  the  tenth 
amended  article,  the  one  in  question,  and  her  ratification 
must  be  at  least  received  as  the  highest  evidence  of  its  true 
meaning  and  interpretation. 

If  these  views  be  correct— and  I  do  not  see  how  they  can 
be  resisted — the  rights  of  the  States  to  judge  of  the  extent 
of  their  reserved  powers  stands  on  the  most  solid  foundation, 
and  is  good  against  every  department  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment ;  and  the  judiciary  is  as  much  excluded  from  an 
interference  with  the  reserved  powers  as  the  legislative  or 
executive  departments.  To  establish  the  opposite,  the  Sen- 
ator relies  upon  the  authority  of  Mr.  Madison,  in  the  Federal- 
ist, to  prove  that  it  was  intended  to  invest  the  court  with 
the  power  in  question.  In  reply,  I  will  meet  Mr.  Madison 
with  his  own  opinion,  given  on  a  most  solemn  occasion,  and 
backed  by  the  sagacious  commonwealth  of  Virginia.  The 
opinion  to  which  I  allude  will  be  found  in  the  celebrated 
report  of  1799,  of  which  Mr.  Madison  was  the  author.  It 


"  But  it  is  objected,  that  the  JUDICIAL  AUTHORITY  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  sole  expositor  of  the  constitution  in  the  last  resort ;  and  it  may  be 
asked  for  what  reason,  the  declaration  by  the  General  Assembly,  suppos- 
ing it  to  be  theoretically  true,  could  be  required  at  the  present  day,  and 
in  so  solemn  a  manner. 

"^n  this  objection  it  might  be  observed,  jirst,  that  there  may  be  in- 
stances of  usurped  power,  which  the  forms  of  the  constitution  would 
never  draw  within  the  control  of  the  judicial  department;  secondly,  that, 
if  the  decision  of  the  judiciary  be  raised  above  the  authority  of  the  sove- 
reign parties  to  the  constitution,  the  decisions  of  the  other  departments, 
not  carried  by  the  forms  of  the  constitution  before  the  judiciary,  must  be 
equally  authoritative  and  final  as  the  decisions  of  this  department.  But 
the  proper  answer  to  this  objection  is,  that  the  resolution  of  the  General  As- 
sembly relates  to  those  great  and  extraordinary  cases  in  which  all  the  forms 
of  the  Constitution  may  prove  ineffectual  against  infractions  dangerous  to 
the  essential  rights  of  the  parties  to  it.  The  resolution  supposes  that 


SPEECHES.  299 

dangerous  powers,  not  delegated,  may  not  only  be  usurped  and  executed 
by  the  other  departments,  but  that  the  judicial  department,  also,  may  ex- 
ercise or  sanction  dangerous  powers  beyond  the  grant  of  the  constitu- 
tion ;  and,  consequently,  that  the  ultimate  right  of  the  parties  to  the  con- 
stitution to  judge  whether  the  compact  was  dangerously  violated,  must  ex- 
tend to  violations  by  one  delegated  authority  as  well  as  by  another ;  by 
the  judiciary  as  well  as  by  the  executive  or  the  legislative." 

The  Senator  also  relies  upon  the  authority  of  Luther 
Martin  to  the  same  point,  to  which  I  have  already  replied  so 
fully  on  another  occasion  (in  answer  to  the  Senator  from  Del- 
aware, Mr.  Clayton),  that  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  add 
any  further  remarks  on  the  present  occasion. 

But  why  should  I  waste  words  in  reply  to  these  or  any 
other  authorities,  when  it  has  been  so  clearly  established  that 
the  rights  of  the  States  are  reserved  against  each  and  every 
department  of  the  Government,  and  no  authority  in  oppo- 
sition can  possibly  shake  a  position  so  well  established  ?  Nor 
do  I  think  it  necessary  to  repeat  the  argument  which  I  of- 
ferred  when  the  bill  was  under  discussion,  to  show  that  the 
clause  in  the  constitution  which  provides  that  the  judicial 
power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in  law  and  equity  arising  under 
this  constitution,  and  to  the  laws  and  treaties  made  under 
its  authority,  has  no  bearing  on  the  point  in  controversy ; 
and  that  even  the  boasted  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  to 
decide  a  law  to  be  unconstitutional,  so  far  from  being  derived 
from  this  or  any  other  portion  of  the  constitution,  results 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case — where  two  rules  of  unequal 
authority  come  in  conflict — and  is  a  power  belonging  to  all 
courts,  superior  and  inferior,  State  and  General,  Domestic 
and  Foreign/ 

I  hav^now,  I  trust,  shown  satisfactorily,  that  there  is  no 
provision  in  the  constitution  to  authorize  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, through  any  of  its  departments,  to  control  the  ac- 
tion of  a  State  within  the  sphere  of  its  reserved  powers  ;  and 
that,  of  course,  according  to  the  principle  laid  down  by  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  himself,  the  government  of  the 


300  SPEECHES. 

States,  as  well  as  the  General  Government,  has  the  right  to 
determine  the  extent  of  their  respective  powers,  without  the 
right  on  the  part  of  either  to  control  the  other.  The  neces- 
sary result  is  the  veto,  to  which  he  so  much  objects ;  and  to 
get  clear  of  which,  he  informs  us,  was  the  object  for  which 
the  present  constitution  was  formed.  I  know  not  whence  he 
has  derived  his  information,  but  my  impression  is  very  differ- 
ent as  to  the  immediate  motives  which  led  to  the  formation 
of  that  instrument.  I  have  always  understood  that  the  prin- 
cipal was,  to  give  to  Congress  the  power  to  regulate  commerce, 
to  lay  impost  duties,  and  to  raise  a  revenue  for  the  payment 
of  the  public  debt  and  the  expenses  of  the  Government ;  and 
to  subject  the  action  of  the  citizens  individually  to  the  ope- 
ration of  the  laws,  as  a  substitute  for  force.  If  the  object 
had  been  to  get  clear  of  the  veto  of  the  States,  as  the  Sena- 
tor states,  the  Convention  certainly  performed  their  work  in 
a  most  bungling  manner.*  There  was  unquestionably  a  large 
party  in  that  body,  headed  by  men  of  distinguished  talents 
and  influence,  who  commenced  early  and  worked  earnestly  to 
the  last,  to  deprive  the  States — not  directly,  for  that  would 
have  been  too  bold  an  attempt,  but  indirectly — of  the  veto. 
The  good  sense  of  the  Convention,  however,  put  down  every 
effort,  however  disguised  and  perseveringly  made.  I  do  not 
deem  it  necessary  to  give,  from  the  journals,  the  history  of 
these  various  and  unsuccessful  attempts — though  it  would  af- 
ford a  very  instructive  lesson.  fLt  isv  sufficient  to  say  that  it 
was  attempted  by  proposing  to  give  Congress*  power  to  annul 
the  acts  of  the  States  which  they  might  deem  inconsistent 
with  the  constitution ;  to  give  to  the  President  the  power  of 
appointing  the  governors  of  the  States,  with  a  view  of  veto- 
ing State  laws  through  his  authority ;  and,  finally,  to  give  to 
the  judiciary  the  power  to  decide  controversies  between  the 
States  and  the  General  Government :  all  of  which  failed — 
fortunately  for  the  liberty  of  the  country — utterly  and  en- 
tirely failed ;  and  in  their  failure  we  have  •  the  strongest  evi- 


SPEECHES.  301 

dence  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  Convention  to  de- 
prive the  States  of  the  veto  power.  Had  the  attempt  to 
deprive  them  of  this  power  been  directly  made,  and  failed, 
every  one  would  have  seen  and  felt  that  it  would  furnish  con- 
clusive evidence  in  favor  of  its  existence.  Now,  I  would  ask. 
What  possible  difference  can  it  make  in  what  form  this  at- 
tempt was  made  ?  whether  by  attempting  to  confer  on  the 
General  Government  a  power  incompatible  with  the  exercise 
of  the  veto  on  the  part  of  the  States,  or  by  attempting  directly 
to  deprive  them  of  the  right  to  exercise  it  ?  Wejbave  thus  di- 
rect and  strong  proof  that,  j^n  the  opinion  of  the  Convention, 
the  States,  unless  deprived  of  it,  possess  the  veto  power — 
or,  what  is  another  name  for  the  same  thing,  the  right  of 
nullification^  I  know  that  there  is  a  diversity  of  opinion 
among  the  friends  of  State  Eights  in  regard  to  this  power, 
which  I  regret,  as  I  cannot  but  consider  it  as  a  power  essen- 
tial to  the  protection  of  the  minor  and  local  interests  of  the 
community,  and  the  liberty  and  the  union  of  the  country. 
It  is  the  very  shield  of  State  Eights,  and  the  only  power 
by  which  that  system  of  injustice  against  which  we  have  con- 
tended for  more  than  thirteen  years  can  be  arrested  :  a  sys- 
tem of  hostile  legislation — of  plundering  by  law,  which  must 
necessarily  lead  to  a  conflict  of  arms  if  not  prevented. 

But  I  rest  the  right  of  a  State  to  judge  of  the  extent  of 
its  reserved  powers,  in  the  last  resort,  on  higher  grounds — 
that  the  constitution  is  a  compact,  to  which  the  States  are 
parties  in  their  sovereign  capacity ;  and  that,  as  in  all  other 
cases  of  compact  between  parties  having  no  common  umpire, 
each  has  a  right  to  judge  for  itself.  /  To  the  truth  of,  this 
proposition  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has  himself  as- 
sented, if  the  constitution  itself  be  a  compact — and  that  it 
is,  I  have  shown,  I  trust,  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt. 
Having  established  this  point,  I  now  claim,  as  I  stated  I 
would  do  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  the  admissions  of  the 
Senator,  and,  amotig  them,  the  right  of  secession  and  nulli- 


302  SPEECHES. 

fieation,  which  he  conceded  would  necessarily  follow  if  the 
constitution  be  indeed  a  compact. 

I  have  now  replied  to  the  arguments  of  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  so  far  as  they  directly  apply  to  the  resolutions, 
and  will,  in  conclusion,  notice  some  of  his  general  and  de- 
tached remarks.  To  prove  that  ours  is  a  consolidated  gov- 
ernment, and  that  there  is  an  immediate  connection  between 
the  Government  and  the  citizen,  he  relies  on  the  fact  that 
the  laws  act  directly  on  individuals.  That  such  is  the  case 
I  will  not  deny  ;  but  I  am  very  far  from  conceding  the  point 
that  it  affords  the  decisive  proof,  or  even  any  proof  at  all,  of 
the  position  which  the  Senator  wishes  to  maintain.  I  hold  it  to 
be  perfectly  within  the  competency  of  two  or  more  States  to 
subject  their  citizens,  in  certain  cases,  to  the  direct  action  of 
each  other,  without  surrendering  or  impairing  their  sover- 
eignty^ I  recollect,  while  I  was  a  member  of  Mr.  Monroe's 
cabinet,  a  proposition  was  submitted  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment to  permit  a  mutual  right  of  search  and  seizure,  on  the 
part  of  each  government,  of  the  citizens  of  the  other,  on 
board  of  vessels  engaged  in  the  slave-trade,  and  to  establish 
a  joint  tribunal  for  their  trial  and  punishment.  The  propo- 
sition was  declined,  not  because  it  would  impair  the  sover- 
eignty of  either,  but  on  the  ground  of  general  expediency, 
and  because  it  would  be  incompatible  with  the  provisions  of 
the  constitution  which  establish  the  judicial  power,  and  which 
provisions  require  the  judges  to  be  appointed  by  the  President 
and  Senate.  If  I  arn  not  mistaken,  propositions  of  the 
same  kind  were  made  and  acceded  to  by  some  of  the  Conti- 
nental powers. 

With  the  same  view,  the  Senator  cited  the  suability  of 
the  States  as  evidence  of  their  want  of  sovereignty ;  at  which 
I  must  express  my  surprise,  coming  from  the  quarter  it 
does.  No  one  knows  better  than  the  Senator  that  it  is  per- 
fectly within  the  competency  of  a  sovereign  State  to  permit 
itself  to  be  sued.  We  have  on  the  statute-book  a  standing 


SPEECHES.  303 

law,  under  which  the  United  States  may  be  sued  in  certain 
land  cases.  If  the  provision  in  the  constitution  on  this  point 
proves  any  thing,  it  proves,  by  the  extreme  jealousy  with 
which  the  right  of  suing  a  State  is  permitted,  the  very  re- 
verse of  that  for  which  the  Senator  contends. 

Among  other  objections  to  the  views  of  the  constitution 
for  which  I  contend,  it  is  said  that  they  are  novel.  I  hold 
this  to  be  a  great  mistake.  The  novelty  is  not  on  my  side, 
but  on  that  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  The  doc- 
trine of  consolidation  which  he  maintains  is  of  recent  growth. 
It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  Hamilton,  Ames,  or  any  of  the  dis- 
tinguished federalists  of  the  period,  all  of  whom  strenuously 
maintained  the  federative  character  of  the  constitution, 
though  they  were  accused  of  supporting  a  system  of  policy 
which  would  necessarily  lead  to  consolidation.  The  first  dis- 
closure of  that  doctrine  was  in  the  case  of  M'Culloch ;  in 
which  the  Supreme  Court  held  the  doctrine,  though  wrapped 
up  in  language  somewhat  indistinct  and  ambiguous.  The 
next,  and  more  open  avowal,  was  by  the  Senator  of  Massa- 
chusetts himself,  about  three  years  ago,  in  the  debate  on 
Foote's  resolution.  The  first  official  annunciation  of  the  doc- 
trine was  in  the  recent  proclamation  of  the  President,  of 
which  the  bill  that  has  recently  passed  this  body  is  the 
bitter  fruit.,' 

It  is  further  objected  by  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  < 
and  others,  against  the  doctrine  of  State  Eights,  as  main- 
tained in  this  debate,  that,  if  it  should  prevail  the  peace  of 
the  country  would  be  destroyed.  But  what  if  it  should  not 
prevail  ?  Would  there  be  peace  ?,  -  Yes,  the  peace  of  des- 
potism :  that  peace  which  is  enforced  by  the  bayonet  and 
the  sword  ;  the  peace  of  death,  where  all  the  vital  functions 
of  liberty  have  ceased.  It  is  this  peace  which  the  doctrine 
of  State  sovereignty  may  disturb  by  that  conflict,  which  in 
every  free  State,  if  properly  organized,  necessarily  exists  be- 
tween liberty  and  power  ;  but  which,  if  restrained  within 


304  SPEECHES. 

proper  limits,  gives  a  salutary  exercise  to  our  moral  and  in- 
tellectual faculties.  In  the  case  of  Carolina,  which  has 
caused  all  this  discussion,  who  does  not  see,  if  the  effusion 
of  blood  be  prevented,  that  the  excitement,  the  agitation, 
and  the  inquiry  which  it  has  caused,  will  be  followed  by 
the  most  beneficial  consequences  ?  The  country  had  sunk 
into  avarice,  intrigue,  and  electioneering — from  which  nothing 
but  some  such  event  could  rouse  it,  or  restore  those  honest 
and  patriotic  feelings  which  had  almost  disappeared  under 
their  baneful  influence.  What  government  has  ever  attained 
power  and  distinction  without  such  conflicts  ?  Look  at  the 
degraded  state  of  all  those  nations  where  they  have  been  put 
down  by  the  iron  arm  of  the  government. 

-« I,  for  my  part,  have  no  fear  of  any  dangerous  conflict, 
under  the  fullest  acknowledgment  of  State  sovereignty  :  the 
very  fact  that  the  States  may  interpose  will  produce  modera- 
tion and  justice.  The  General  Government  will  abstain 
from  the  exercise  of  any  power  in  which  they  may  suppose 
three-fourths  of  the  States  will  not  sustain  them  ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  States  will  not  interpose  but  on  the  con- 
viction that  they  will  be  supported  by  one-fourth  of  their  co- 
States.  Moderation  and  justice  will  produce  confidence,  at- 
tachment, and  patriotism;  and  these,  in  turn,  will  offer 
most  powerful  barriers  against  the  excess  of  conflicts  between 
the  States  and  the  General  Government.* 

But  we  are  told  that,  should  the  doctrine  prevail,  the 
present  system  would  be  as  bad,  if  not  worse,  than  the  old 
confederation.  I  regard  the  assertion  only  as  evidence  of 
that  extravagance  of  declaration  in  which,  from  excitement 
of  feeling,  we  so  often  indulge.  Admit  the  power,  and  still 
the  present  system  would  be  as  far  removed  from  the  weak- 
ness of  the  old  confederation  as  it  would  be  from  the  lawless 
and  despotic  violence  of  consolidation.  So  far  from  being  the 
same,  the  difference  between  the  confederation  and  the  present 
constitution  would  still  be  most  strongly  marked.  If  there 


SPEECHES.  305 

were  no  other  distinction, /he  fact  that  the  former  required 
the  concurrence  of  the  States  to  execute  its  acts,  and  the 
latter,  the  act  of  a  State  to  arrest  them,  would  make  a  dis- 
tinction as  broad  as  the  ocean.  In  the  former,  the  vis  inertice 
of  our  uatm-0  is  in  opposition  to  the  action  of  the  system. 
Not  to  act  was  to  defeat.  In  the  latter,  the  same  principle 
is  on  the  opposite  side — action  is  required  to  defeat.  He 
who  understands  human  nature  will  see  in  this  fact  alone,  the 
difference  between  a  feeble  and  illy-contrived  confederation, 
and  the  restrained  energy  of  a  federal  system.  /Of  the  same 
character  is  the  objection  that  the  doctrine  jjrfU  be  the  source 
of  weakness.  If  we  look  to  mere  organization  and  physical 
power  as  the  only  source  of  strength,  without  taking  into  the 
estimate  the  operation  of  moral  causes,  such  would  appear 
to  be  the  fact ;  but  if  we  take  into  the  estimate  the  latter, 
we  shall  find  that  those  governments  have  the  greatest 
strength  in  which  power  has  been  most  efficiently  checked. 
The  government  of  Rome  furnishes  a  memorable  example. 
There,  two  independent  and  distinct  powers  existed — the  peo- 
ple acting  by  tribes,  in  which  the  Plebeians  prevailed,  and 
by  centuries,  in  which  the  Patricians  ruled.  The  Tribunes 
were  the  appointed  representatives  of  the  one  power,  and  the 
Senate  of  the  other ;  each  possessed  of  the  authority  of 
checking  and  overruling  one  another,  not  as  departments  of 
the  government,  as  supposed  by  the  Senator  from  Massachu- 
setts, but  as  independent  powers — as  much  so  as  the  State 
and  General  Governments.  A  shallow  observer  would  per- 
ceive, in  such  an  organization,  nothing  but  the  perpetual 
source  of  anarchy,  discord,  and  weakness ;  and  yet,  experi- 
ence has  proved  that  it  was  the  most  powerful  government 
that  ever  existed  ;  and  reason  teaches  that  this  power  was 
derived  from  the  very  circumstance  which  hasty  reflection 
would  consider  the  cause  of  weakness.  I  will  venture  an  as- 
sertion, which  may  be  considered  extravagant,  but  in  which 
history  will  fully  bear  me  out,  that  we  have  no  knowledge 
VOL.  n. — 20 


306  SPEECHES. 

of  any  people  where  the  power  of  arresting  the  improper 
acts  of  the  government,  or  what  may  be  called  the  negative 
power  of  government,  was  too  strong, — except  Poland,  where 
every  freeman  possessed  a  veto.  But  even  there,  although 
it  existed  in  so  extravagant  a  form,  it  was  the  source  of  the 
highest  and  most  lofty  attachment  to  liberty,  and  the  most 
heroic  courage  :  qualities  that  more  than  once  saved  Europe 
from  the  domination  of  the  crescent  and  cimeter.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that  the  fate  of  Poland  is  not  to  be  attri- 
buted so  much  to  the  excess  of  this  negative  power  of  itself, 
as  to  the  facility  which  it  afforded  to  foreign  influence  in  con- 
trolling its  political  movements. 

I  am  not  surprised  that,  with  the  idea  of  a  perfect 
government  which  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has  form- 
ed— a  government  of  an  absolute  majority,  unchecked  and 
unrestrained,  operating  through  a  representative  body — 
he  should  be  so  much  shocked  with  what,  he  is  pleased  to 
call,  the  absurdity  of  the  State  veto.  But  let  me  tell  him 
that  his  scheme  of  a  perfect  government,  as  beautiful  as  he 
conceives  it  to  be,  though  often  tried,  has  invariably  failed, 
— has  always  run,  whenever  tried,  through  the  same  uni- 
form process  of  faction,  corruption,  anarchy,  and  despotism. 
M&  considers  the  representative  principle  as  the  great  modern 
improvement  in  legislation,  and  of  itself  sufficient  to  secure 
liberty.  I  cannot  regard  it  in  the  light  in  which  he  does. 
Instead  of  modern,  it  is  of  remote  origin,  and  has  existed,  in 
greater  or  less  perfection,  in  every  free  State,  from  the  re- 
motest antiquity.  Nor  do  I  consider  it  as  of  itself  sufficient 
to  secure  liberty,  though  I  regard  it  as  one  of  the  indis- 
pensable means — the  means  of  securing  the  people  against 
the  tyranny  and  oppression  of  their  rulers.  To  secure 
liberty,  another  means  is  still  necessary — the  means  of  secur- 
ing the  different  portions  of  society  against  the  injustice  and 
oppression  of  each  other,  which  can  only  be  effected  by 
veto,  interposition,  or  nullification,  or  by  whatever  name 


SPEECHES.  307 

the  restraining  or  negative  power  of  government  may  be 
called/ 

The  Senator  appears  to  be  enamored  with  his  conception 
of  a  consolidated  government,  and  avows  himself  to  be  pre- 
pared, seeking  no  lead,  to  rush,  in  its  defence,  to  the  front 
rank,  where  the  blows  fall  heaviest  and  thickest.  I  admire 
his  gallantry  and  courage,  but  I  will  tell  him  that  he  will 
find  in  the  opposite  ranks,  under  the  flag  of  liberty,  spirits 
as  gallant  as  his  own ;  and  that  experience  will  teach  him 
it  is  infinitely  easier  to  carry  on  the  war  of  legislative  ex- 
actions by  bills  and  enactments,  than  to  extort  by  sword  and 
bayonet  from  the  brave  and  the  free. 

The  bill  which  has  passed  this  body  is  intended  to  decide 
this  great  controversy  between  the  view  of  our  Government 
entertained  by  the  Senator  and  those  who  act  with  him,  and 
that  supported  on  our  side.  It  has  merged  the  tariff,  and 
all  other  questions  connected  with  it,  in  the  higher  and  di- 
rect issue  which  it  presents  between  the  federal  and  national 
system  of  governments.  I  consider  the  bill  as  far  worse,  and 
more  dangerous  to  liberty,  than  the  tariff'.  It  has  been  most 
wantonly  passed,  when  its  avowed  object  no  longer  justified 
it.  I  consider  it  as  chains  forged  and  fitted  to  the  limbs  of 
the  States,  and  hung  up  to  be  used  when  occasion  may  re- 
quire. We  are  told,  in  order  to  justify  the  passage  of  this 
fatal  measure,  that  it  was  necessary  to  present  the  olive- 
branch  with  one  hand  and  the  sword  with  the  other.  We 
scorn  the  alternative.  You  have  no  right  to  present  the 
sword.  The  constitution  never  put  the  instrument  in  your 
hands  to  be  employed  against  a  State  ;  and  as  to  the  olive- 
branch,  whether  we  receive  it  or  not  will  not  depend  on  your 
menace,  but  on  our  own  estimate  of  what  is  due  to  ourselves 
and  the  rest  of  the  community  in  reference  to  the  difficult 
subject  on  which  we  have  taken  issue. 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has  struggled  hard  to 
sustain  his  cause,  but  the  load  was  too  heavy  for  him  to  bear. 


308  SPEECHES. 

I  am  not  surprised  at  the  arjjlor  and  zeal  with  which  he  has 
entered  into  the  controversy/  It  is  a  great  straggle  between 
power  and  liberty — power  ofa.  the  side  of  the  North,  and  lib- 
erty on  the  side  of  the  South./  But,  while  I  am  not  sur- 
prised at  the  part  which  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has 
taken,  I  must  express  my  amazement  at  the  principles  ad- 
vanced by  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  nearest  me  (Mr.  For- 
syth).  I  had  supposed  it  was  impossible  that  one  of  his  ex- 
perience and  sagacity  should  not  perceive  the  new  and  dan- 
gerous direction  which  this  controversy  is  about  to  take.  For 
the  first  time,  we  have  heard  an  ominous  reference  to  a  pro- 
vision in  the  constitution  which  I  have  never  known  to  be 
before  alluded  to  in  discussion,  or  in  connection  with  any  of 
our  measures.  I  refer  to  that  provision  in  the  constitution 
in  which  the  General  Government  guarantees  a  republican 
form  of  government  to  the  States — a  power  which  hereafter, 
if  not  rigidly  restricted  to  the  objects  intended  by  the  con- 
stitution, is  destined  to  be  a  pretext  to  interfere  with  our  po- 
litical affairs  and  domestic  institutions  in  a  manner  infinitely 
more  dangerous  than  any  other  power  which  has  ever  been 
exercised  on  the  part  of  the  General  Government.  I  had 
supposed  that  every  Southern  Senator,  at  least,  would  have 
been  awake  to  the  danger  which  menaces  us  from  this  new 
quarter ;  and  that  no  sentiment  would  be  uttered,  on  their 
part,  calculated  to  countenance  the  exercise  of  this  danger- 
ous power.  With  these  impressions,  I  heard  the  Senator, 
with  amazement,  alluding  to  Carolina  as  furnishing  a  case 
which  called  for  the  enforcement  of  this  guarantee.  Does  he 
not  see  the  hazard  of  the  indefinite  extension  of  so  fatal  a 
power  ?  There  exists  in  every  Southern  State  a  domestic 
institution,  which  would  require  a  far  less  bold  construction 
to  consider  the  government  of  every  State  in  that  quarter, 
not  to  be  republican,  and,  of  course,  to  demand,  on  the  part 
of  this  Government,  the  suppression  of  the  institution  to 
which  I  allude,  in  fulfilment  of  the  guarantee.  I  believe 


309 

there  are  now  no  hostile  feelings  combined  with  political  con- 
siderations, in  any  section,  connected  with  this  delicate  sub- 
ject. But  it  requires  no  stretch  of  the  imagination  to  see 
the  danger  which  must  one  day  come,  if  not  vigilantly 
watched.  With  the  rapid  strides  with  which  this  Govern- 
ment is  advancing  to  power,  a  time  will  come,  and  that  not 
far  distant,  when  petitions  will  be  received  from  the  quar- 
ter to  which  I  allude  for  protection — when  the  faith  of  the 
guarantee  will  be,  at  least,  as  applicable  to  that  case  as  the 
Senator  from  Georgia  now  thinks  it  is  to  Carolina.  Unless 
his  doctrine  be  opposed  by  united  and  firm  resistance,  its 
ultimate  effect  will  be  to  drive  the  white  population  from  the 
Southern  Atlantic  States. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Removal  of  the  Public  Deposits  from  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States,  delivered  in  the  Senate,  Jan- 
uary 13th,  1834. 

[THE  Special  Order  now  came  up,  the  question  being  on  Mr.  Clay's 
resolutions  in  regard  to  the  removal  of  the  Public  Deposits.] 

ME.  CALHOUN  said,  that  the  statement  of  this  case  might 
be  given  in  a  very  few  words.  The  16th  section  of  the  act 
incorporating  the  Bank,  provides  that,  wherever  there  is  a 
bank  or  branch  of  the  United  States  Bank,  the  public  moneys 
should  be  deposited  therein,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  and  that,  in  such  case,  he  should 
report  to  Congress,  if  in  session,  immediately ;  and  if  not,  at 
the  commencement  of  the  next  session.  The  Secretary,  act- 
ing under  the  provisions  of  this  section,  has  ordered  the  de- 


310  SPEECHES 

posits  to  be  withheld  from  the  Bank,  and  has  reported  his 
reasons,  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  section. 
The  Senate  is  now  called  upon  to  consider  his  reasons,  in  or- 
der to  determine  whether  the  Secretary  is  justified  or  not. 
I  have  examined  them  with  care  and  deliberation,  without 
the  slightest  bias,  as  far  as  I  am  conscious,  personal  or  polit- 
ical. I  have  but  a  slight  acquaintance  with  the  Secretary, 
and  that  little  is  not  unfavorable  to  him./ 1  stand  wholly 
disconnected  with  the  two  great  parties  now  contending  for 
ascendency.  My  political  connections  are  with  that  small  and 
denounced  party  which  has  voluntarily  retired  from  the  party 
strifes  of  the  day,  with  a  view  of  saving,  if  possible,  the  lib- 
erty and  the  constitution  of  the  country,  in  this  great  crisis 
of  our  affairs.  / 

Having  Maturely  considered,  with  these  impartial  feel- 
ings, the  reasons  of  the  Secretary,  I  am  constrained  to  say 
that  he  has  entirely  failed  to  make  out  his  justification.  At 
the  very  commencement,  he  has  placed  his  right  to  remove 
the  deposits  on  an  assumption  resting  on  a  misconception  of 
the  case.  In  the  progress  of  his  argument  he  has  entirely 
abandoned  the  first,  and  assumed  a  new  and  greatly  enlarged 
ground,  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  first,  and  equally  un- 
tenable ;  and  yet,  as  broad  as  his  assumptions  are,  there  is 
an  important  part  of  the  transaction  which  he  does  not  at- 
tempt to  vindicate,  and  to  which  he  has  not  even  alluded.  I 
shall,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  now  proceed,  without  further  re- 
mark, to  make  good  these  assertions. 

The  Secretary,  at  the  commencement  of  his  argument, 
assumes  the  position  that,  in  the  absence  of  all  legal  provi- 
sion, he,  as  the  head  of  the  financial  department,  had  the 
right,  in  virtue  of  his  office,  to  designate  the  agent  and  place 
for  the  safe-keeping  of  the  public  deposits.  He  then  con- 
tends that  the  16th  section  does  not  restrict  his  power,  which 
stands,  he  says,  on  the  same  ground  as  before  the  passing  of 
the  act  incorporating  the  Bank.  It  is  not  necessary  to  inquire 


SPEECHES.  311 

into  the  correctness  of  the  position  assumed  by  the  Secreta- 
ry ;  but,  if  it  were,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  show,  that 
when  an  agent,  with  general  powers,  assumes,  in  the  execu- 
tion of  his  agency,  a  power  not  delegated,  the  assumption 
rests  on  the  necessity  of  the  case ;  and  that  no  power,  in 
such  case,  can  be  lawfully  exercised,  which  was  not  necessary 
to  effect  the  object  intended.  Nor  would  it  be  difficult  to 
show  that,  in  this  case,  the  power  assumed  by  the  Secretary 
would  belong,  not  to  him,  but  to  the  Treasurer ;  who,  under  the 
act  organizing  the  Treasury  Department,  is  expressly  charged 
with  the  safe-keeping  of  the  public  funds,  for  which  he  is  re- 
sponsible under  bond,  in  heavy  penalties.  But  as  strongly  and 
directly  as  these  considerations  bear  on  the  question  of  the 
power  of  the  Secretary,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  pursue 
them,  for  the  plain  reason  that  the  Secretary  has  entirely 
mistaken  the  case.  It  is  not  a  case,  as  he  supposes,  where 
there  is  no  legal  provision  in  relation  to  the  safe-keeping  of 
the  public  funds,  but  one  of  precisely  the  opposite  character. 
The  16th  section  expressly  provides  that  the  deposits  shall 
be  made  in  the  Bank  and  its  branches  ;  and,  of  course,  it  is 
perfectly  clear  that  all  powers  which  the  Secretary  has  de- 
rived from  the  general  and  inherent  powers  of  his  office,  in 
the  absence  of  such  provision,  are  wholly  inapplicable  to  this 
case.  Nor  is  it  less  clear  that,  if  the  section  had  terminated 
with  the  provision  directing  the  deposits  to  be  made  in  the 
Bank,  the  Secretary  would  have  had  no  more  control  over 
the  subject  than  myself,  or  any  other  Senator  ;  and  it  fol- 
lows, of  course,  that  he  must  derive  his  power,  not  from  any 
general  reasons  connected  with  the  nature  of  his  office,  but 
from  some  express  provisions  contained  in  the  section,  or 
some  other  part  of  the  act.  It  has  not  been  attempted  to 
be  shown  that  there  is  any  such  provision  in  any  other  sec- 
tion or  part  of  the  act.  The  only  control,  then,  which  the 
Secretary  can  rightfully  claim  over  the  deposits  is  contained 
in  the  provision  which  directs  that  the  deposits  shall  be  made 


312  SPEECHES. 

in  the  Bank,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  ;  which  brings  the  whole  question  in  reference 
to  the  deposits,  to  the  extent  of  the  power  which  Congress 
intended  to  confer  upon  the  Secretary,  in  these  few  words, 
"  unless  otherwise  ordered." 

In  ascertaining  the  intention  of  Congress,  I  lay  it  down 
as  a  rale,  which  I  suppose  will  not  be  controverted,  that  all 
political  powers,  under  our  free  institutions,  are  trust  powers, 
and  not  rights,  liberties,  or  immunities,  belonging  personally 
to  the  officer.  I  also  lay  it  down  as  a  rule  not  less  incontro- 
vertible, that  trust  powers  are  necessarily  limited  (unless 
there  be  some  express  provision  to  the  contrary)  to  the  sub- 
ject-matter and  object  of  the  trust.  This  brings  us  to  the 
question,  What  is  the  subject  and  object  of  the  trust  in  this 
case  ?  The  whole  section  relates  to  deposits — to  the  safe 
and  faithful  keeping  of  the  public  funds.  With  this  view 
they  are  directed  to  be  made  in  the  Bank.  With  the  same 
view,  and  in  order  to  increase  the  security,  power  was 
conferred  on  the  Secretary  to  withhold  the  deposits ;  and 
with  the  same  view,  he  is  directed  to  report  his  reasons  for 
the  removal,  to  Congress.  All  have  one  common  object,  the 
security  of  the  public  funds.  To  this  point  the  whole  sec- 
tion converges.  The  language  of  Congress,  fairly  understood, 
is,  We  have  selected  the  Bank  because  we  confide  in  it  as  a 
safe  and  faithful  agent  to  keep  the  public  money ;  but,  to 
prevent  the  abuse  of  so  important  a  trust,  we  invest  the  Sec- 
retary with  power,  to  remove  the  deposits,  with  a  view  to 
their  increased  security.  And  lest  the  Secretary,  on  his 
part,  should  abuse  so  important  a  trust,  and  in  order  still 
further  to  increase  that  security,  we  direct,  in  case  of  re- 
moval, that  he  shall  report  his  reasons.  It  is  obvious,  under 
this  view  of  the  subject,  that  the  Secretary  has  no  right 
to  act  in  relation  to  the  deposits,  but  with  a  view  to 
their  increased  security ;  and  that  he  has  no  right  to  or- 
der them  to  be  withheld  from  the  Bank  so  long  as  the 


SPEECHES.  313 

funds  are  safe,  and  the  Bank  has  faithfully  performed  the  du- 
ties imposed  in  relation  to  them  ;  and  not  even  then,  unless 
the  deposits  can  be  placed  in  safer  and  more  faithful  hands. 
That  such  was  the  opinion  of  the  Executive  in  the  first  in- 
stance, we  have  demonstrative  proof  in  the  message  of  the 
President  to  Congress  at  the  close  of  the  last  session,  which 
placed  the  subject  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits  exclusive- 
ly on  the  question  of  their  safety  ;  and  that  such  was  also 
the  opinion  of  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  then,  we  have 
equally  conclusive  proof  from  the  vote  of  that  body  that  the 
public  funds  in  the  Bank  were  safe,  which  was  understood,  at 
that  time,  on  all  sides,  by  friends  and  foes,  as  deciding  the 
question  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits. 

The  extent  of  the  power  intended  to  be  conferred  being 
established,  the  question  now  arises,  Has  the  Secretary  tran- 
scended its  limit  ?  It  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to  argue 
this  point.  It  is  not  even  pretended  that  the  public  depos- 
its were  in  danger,  nor  that  the  Bank  had  not  faithfully  per- 
formed all  the  duties  imposed  on  it  in  relation  to  them,  nor 
that  the  Secretary  had  placed  the  money  in  safer  or  more 
faithful  hands.  So  far  otherwise,  there  is  not  a  man  who 
hears  me  who  will  not  admit  that  the  public  moneys  are  now 
less  safe  than  they  were  in  the  Bank  of  the  United  States. 
And  I  will  venture  to  assert  that  not  a  capitalist  can  be  found 
who  would  not  ask  a  considerably  higher  percentage  to  in- 
sure them  in  their  present,  than  in  the  place  of  deposit  de- 
signated by  law.  If  these  views  are  correct,  and  I  hold  them 
to  be  unquestionable,  the  question  is  decided.  The  Secretary 
has  no  right  to  withhold  the  deposits  from  the  Bank.  There 
has  been,  and  can  be  but  one  argument  advanced  in  favor  of 
his  right  which  has  even  the  appearance  of  being  tenable — 
that  the  power  to  withhold  is  given  in  general  terms,  and 
without  qualification,  "  unless  the  Secretary  otherwise  direct" 
They  who  resort  to  this  argument  must  assume  the  position, 
that  the  letter  ought  to  prevail  over  the  clear  and  manifest 


314  SPEECHES. 

intention  of  the  act.  They  must  regard  the  power  of  the 
Secretary,  not  as  a  trust  power,  limited  by  the  subject  and 
the  object  of  the  trust,  but  as  a  chartered  right,  to  be  used 
according  to  his  discretion  and  pleasure.  There  is  a  radical 
defect  in  our  mode  of  construing  political  powers,  of  which 
this  and  many  other  instances  afford  striking  examples.  But 
/I  will  give  the  Secretary  his  choice  ;  either  the  intention  or 
the  letter  must  prevail — he  may  select  either,  but  cannot  be 
permitted  to  take  one  or  the  other  as  may  suit  his  purpose. 
If  he  chooses  the  former,  he  has  transcended  his  powers,  as  I 
have  clearly  demonstrated.  If  he  selects  the  latter,  he  is 
equally  condemned,  as  he  has  clearly  exercised  powers  not 
comprehended  in  the  letter  of  his  authority^  He  has  not 
confined  himself  simply  to  withholding  the  public  moneys 
from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  but  he  has  ordered 
them  to  be  deposited  in  other  banks,  though  there  is  not  a 
word  in  the  section  to  justify  it.  I  do  not  intend  to  argue 
the  question,  whether  he  had  a  right  to  order  the  funds  with- 
held from  the  United  States  Bank  to  be  placed  in  the  State 
banks,  which  he  has  selected ;  but  I  ask,  How  has  he  ac- 
quired that  right  ?  It  rests  wholly  on  construction — on  the 
supposed  intention  of  the  legislature,  which,  when  it  gives 
a  power,  intends  to  give  all  the  means  necessary  to  render  it 
available.  But,  as  clear  as  this  principle  of  construction  is, 
it  is  not  more  clear  than  that  which  would  limit  the  right  of 
the  Secretary  to  the  question  of  the  safe  and  faithful  keeping 
of  the  public  funds;  and  I  cannot  admit  that  he  shall  be 
permitted  to  resort  to  the  letter  or  to  construction,  as  may 
best  be  calculated  to  enlarge  his  power,  when  the  right  con- 
struction is  denied  to  those  who  would  limit  his  power  by 
the  clear  and  obvious  intention  of  Congress. 

I  might  here,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  rest  the  question  of  the 
power  of  the  Secretary  over  the  deposits,  without  adding 
another  word.  I  have  placed  it  on  grounds  from  which  no 
ingenuity,  however  great,  or  subtlety,  however  refined,  can 


315 

remove  it ;  but  such  is  the  magnitude  of  the  case,  and  such 
my  desire  to  give  the  reasons  of  the  Secretary  the  fullest 
consideration,  that  I  shall  follow  him  through  the  remainder 
of  them. 

That  the  Secretary  was  conscious  the  first  position 
which  he  assumed,  and  which  I  have  considered,  was  unten- 
able, we  have  ample  proof  in  the  precipitancy  with  which  he 
retreated  from  it.  He  had  scarcely  laid  it  down,  when,  with- 
out illustration  or  argument,  he  passed  with  a  rapid  tran- 
sition, and,  I  must  say,  a  transition  as  obscure  as  rapid,  to 
another  position  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  first,  and  in  as- 
suming which,  he  expressly  repudiates  the  idea  that  the  safe 
and  faithful  keeping  of  the  public  funds  had  any  necessary 
connection  with  his  removal  of  the  deposits ;  his  power  to 
do  which,  he  places  on  the  broad  and  unlimited  ground  that 
he  had  a  right  to  make  such  disposition  of  them  as  the  pub- 
lic interest  or  the  convenience  of  the  people  might  require. 
I  have  said  that  the  transition  was  as  obscure  as  it  was 
rapid  ;  but,  obscure  as  it  is,  he  has  said  enough  to  enable  us 
to  perceive  the  process  by  which  he  has  reached  so  extraordi- 
nary a  position  ;  and  we  may  safely  affirm  that  his  arguments 
are  not  less  extraordinary  than  the  conclusion  at  which  he 
arrives.  His  first  proposition,  which,  however,  he  has  not 
ventured  to  lay  down  expressly,  is,  that  Congress  has  an  un- 
limited control  over  the  deposits,  and  that  it  may  dispose  of 
them  in  whatever  manner  it  may  please,  in  order  to  promote 
the  general  welfare  and  convenience  of  the  people.  He  next 
asserts  that  Congress  has  parted  with  this  power  under  the 
sixteenth  section,  which  directs  the  deposits  to  be  made  in 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  and  then  concludes  with  af- 
firming that  it  has  invested  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
with  it,  for  reasons  which  I  am  unable  to  understand. 

It  cannot  be  necessary,  before  so  enlightened  a  body,  that 
I  should  undertake  to  refute  an  argument  so  utterly  untrue  in 
premises  and  conclusion — to  show  that  Congress  never  pos- 


316  SPEECHES. 

sessed  the  power  which  the  Secretary  claims  for  it — that 
it  is  a  power,  from  its  very  nature,  incapable  of  such  en- 
largement, being  limited  solely  to  the  safe  keeping  of  the 
public  funds ;  that  if  it  existed,  it  would  be  susceptible  of 
the  most  dangerous  abuses  ;  that  Congress  might  make  the 
wildest  and  most  dangerous  association  the  depository  of  the 
public  funds  ;  might  place  them  in  the  hands  of  the  fanatics 
and  madmen  of  the  North,  who  are  waging  war  against  the 
domestic  institutions  of  the  South,  under  the  plea  of  promoting 
the  general  welfare.  But  admitting  that  Congress  possessed 
the  power  which  the  Secretary  attributes  to  it,  by  what  process 
of  reasoning  can  he  show  that  it  has  parted  with  this  un- 
limited power,  simply  by  directing  the  public  moneys  to  be 
deposited  in  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  ?  or,  if  it  has 
parted  with  the  power,  by  what  extraordinary  process  has  it 
been  transferred  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  by  those 
few  and  simple  words,  "  unless  he  shall  otherwise  direct  ?  " 
In  support  of  this  extraordinary  argument,  the  Secretary  has 
offered  not  a  single  illustration,  nor  a  single  remark  bearing 
the  semblance  of  reason,  but  one,  which  I  shall  now  proceed 
to  notice. 

He  asserts,  and  asserts  truly,  that  the  Bank  charter  is  a 
contract  between  the  Government,  or,  rather,  the  people  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Bank,  and  then  assumes  that  it 
constitutes  him  a  common  agent  or  trustee,  to  superintend 
the  execution  of  the  stipulations  contained  in  that  portion 
of  the  contract  comprehended  in  the  sixteenth  section.  Let 
us  now,  taking  these  assumptions  to  be  true,  ascertain  what 
those  stipulations  are,  the  superintendence  of  the  execution 
of  which,  as  he  affirms,  are  jointly  confided  by  the  parties  to 
him.  The  Government  stipulated,  on  its  part,  that  the 
public  money  should  be  deposited  in  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States — a  great  and  valuable  privilege,  on  which  the  suc- 
cessful operation  of  the  institution  mainly  depends.  The 
Bank,  on  its  part,  stipulated  that  the  funds  should  be  safely 


SPEECHES.  317 

kept,  that  the  duties  imposed  in  relation  to  them  should  be 
faithfully  discharged,  and  that  for  this  with  other  privileges, 
it  would  pay  to  the  Government  the  sum  of  one  million  five 
hundred  thousand  dollars.  These  are  the  stipulations,  the 
execution  of  which,  according  to  the  Secretary's  assumption, 
he  has  been  appointed,  as  joint  agent  or  trustee,  to  super- 
intend, and  from  which  he  would  assume  the  extraordinary 
power  which  he  claims  over  the  deposits,  to  dispose  of  them 
in  such  manner  as  he  may  think  the  public  'nterest  or  the 
convenience  of  the  people  may  require. 

Is  it  not  obvious  that  the  whole  extent  of  power  con- 
ferred upon  him,  admitting  his  assumption  to  be  true,  is 
to  withhold  the  deposits  in  case  that  the  Bank  should  violate 
its  stipulations  in  relation  to  them,  on  one  side  ; — and,  on 
the  other,  to  prevent  the  Government  from  withholding  the 
deposits,  so  long  as  the  Bank  faithfully  performed  its  part  of 
the  contract  ?  This  is  the  full  extent  of  his  power.  Ac- 
cording to  his  own  showing,  not  a  particle  more  can  be 
added.  But  there  is  another  aspect  in  which  the  position 
the  Secretary  has  assumed  may  be  viewed.  It  offers  for 
consideration  not  only  a  question  of  the  extent  of  his  power, 
but  a  question  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  duty  which 
has  been  imposed  upon  him.  If  the  position  be  such  as  he 
has  described,  there  has  been  confided  to  him  a  trust  of  the 
most  sacred  character,  accompanied  by  duties  of  the  most 
solemn  obligation.  He  stands,  by  the  mutual  confidence  of 
the  parties,  vested  with  the  high  judicial  power  to  determine 
on  the  infraction  or  observance  of  a  contract  in  which  Gov- 
ernment and  a  large  and  respectable  portion  of  the  citizens 
are  deeply  interested  ;  and,  in  the  execution  of  this  high 
power,  he  is  bound,  by  honor  and  conscience,  so  to  act  as 
to  protect  each  of  the  parties  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  their 
respective  portion  of  benefit  in  the  contract,  so  long  as  they 
faithfully  observe  it.  How  has  the  Secretary  performed 
these  solemn  duties,  which,  according  to  his  representation, 


318  SPEECHES. 

have  been  imposed  upon  him  ?  Has  he  protected  the  Bank 
against  the  aggressions  of  the  Government,  or  the  Govern- 
ment against  the  unfaithful  conduct  of  the  Bank,  in  relation 
to  the  deposits  ?  Or  has  he,  forgetting  his  sacred  obliga- 
tions, disregarded  the  interests  of  both  :  on  one  side,  divest- 
ing the  Bank  of  the  deposits — and  on  the  other,  defeating 
the  Government  in  the  intended  security  of  the  public  funds, 
by  seizing  on  them  as  the  property  of  the  Executive,  to  be 
disposed  of,  at  pleasure,  to  favorite  and  partisan  banks  ? 

But  I  shall  relieve  the  Secretary  from  this  awkward 
and  disreputable  position  in  which  his  own  arguments  have 
placed  him.  He  is  not  the  mutual  trustee,  as  he  has  repre- 
sented, of  the  Government  and  the  Bank,  but  simply  the 
agent  of  the  former,  vested,  under  the  contract,  with  power 
to  withhold  the  deposits, — with  a  view,  as  has  been  stated 
to  their  additional  security — to  their  safe-keeping ;  and  if 
he  had  but  for  a  moment  reflected  on  the  fact  that  he  was 
directed  to  report  his  reasons  to  Congress  only,  and  not  also 
to  the  Bank,  for  withholding  the  deposits,  he  could  scarcely 
have  failed  to  perceive  that  he  was  simply  the  agent  of  one 
of  the  parties,  and  not,  as  he  supposes,  a  joint  agent  of 
both. 

The  Secretary  having  established,  as  he  supposes,  his 
right  to  dispose  of  the  deposits  as,  in  his  opinion,  the  general 
interest  and  convenience  of  the  people  might  require,  pro- 
ceeds to  claim  and  exercise  power  with  a  boldness  com- 
mensurate with  the  extravagance  of  the  right  which  he  has 
assumed.  He  commences  with  a  claim  to  determine,  in  his 
official  character,  that  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  is 
unconstitutional ;  a  monopoly,  baneful  to  the  welfare  of  the 
community.  Having  determined  this  point,  he  comes  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  charter  of  the  Bank  ought  not  to 
be  renewed,  and  then  assumes  that  it  will  not  be  renewed. 
Having  reached  this  point,  he  then  determines  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  remove  the  deposits.  No  one  can  object  that  Mr. 


SPEECHES.  319 

Taney,  as  a  citizen  in  his  individual  character,  should  enter- 
tain an  opinion  us  to  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  Bank ; 
but  that  he,  acting  in  his  official  character,  and  performing 
official  acts  under  the  charter  of  the  Bank,  should  undertake 
to  determine  that  the  institution  was  unconstitutional,  and 
that  those  who  granted  the  charter,  and  bestowed  on  him  his 
power  to  act  under  it,  had  violated  the  constitution,  is  an 
assumption  of  power  of  a  nature  which  I  will  not  undertake 
to  characterize,  as  I  wish  not  to  be  personal. 

But  he  is  not  content  with  the  power  simply  to  deter- 
mine on  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  Bank.  He  goes  far 
beyond  :  he  claims  to  be  the  organ  of  the  voice  of  the 
people.  In  this  high  character,  he  pronounces  that  the 
question  of  the  renewal  of  the  Bank  charter  was  put  at 
issue  in  the  last  Presidential  election,  and  that  the  peo- 
ple had  determined  that  it  should  not  be  renewed.  I 
do  not,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  intend  to  enter  into  the  argu- 
ment, whether,  in  point  of  fact,  the  renewal  of  the  charter 
was  put  in  issue  at  the  last  election.  That  point  was 
ably  and  fully  discussed  by  the  honorable  Senators  from 
Kentucky  (Mr.  Clay)  and  New  Jersey  (Mr.  Southard),  who 
conclusively  proved  that  no  such  question  was  involved  in 
the  election  ;  and  if  it  were,  the  issue  comprehended  sc 
many  others,  that  it  was  impossible  to  conjecture  on  which 
the  election  turned.  I  look  to  higher  objections.  I  would 
inquire  by  what  authority  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  con- 
stitutes himself  the  organ  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  ? 
He  has  the  reputation  of  being  an  able  lawyer,  and  can  he 
be  ignorant  that,  so  long  as  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  exists,  the  only  organs  of  the  people  of  these  States,  as 
far  as  the  action  of  the  General  Government  is  concerned, 
are  the  several  departments,  legislative,  executive,  and  judi- 
cial, which,  acting  within  the  respective  limits  assigned  by 
the  constitution,  have  a  right  to  pronounce  authoritatively 
the  voice  of  the  people  ?  A  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Exe- 


320  SPEECHES. 

cutive  to  interpret,  as  the  Secretary  has  done,  the  voice  of 
the  people  through  any  other  channel,  is  to  shake  the  foun- 
dations of  our  system.  Has  the  Secretary  forgotten  that 
the  last  step  to  absolute  power  is  this  very  assumption  which 
he  has  claimed  for  that  department  ?  I  am  thus  brought, 
said  Mr.  0.,  to  allude  to  the  extraordinary  manifesto  read 
by  the  President  to  the  Cabinet,  and  which  is  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  point  immediately  under  consideration. 
That  document,  though  apparently  addressed  to  the  Cabinet, 
was  clearly  and  manifestly  intended  as  an  appeal  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  and  opens  a  new  and  direct 
organ  of  communication  between  the  President  and  them 
unknown  to  the  constitution  and  the  laws. /There  are  but 
two  channels  known  to  either,  through  which  the  President 
can  communicate  with  the  people — by  messages  to  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress,  as  expressly  provided  for  in  the  constitu- 
tion, or  by  proclamation,  setting  forth  the  interpretations 
which  he  places  upon  a  law  it  has  become  his  official  duty  to 
execute.  Going  beyond,  is  one  among  the  alarming  signs  of 
the  times  which  portend  the  overthrow  of  the  constitution 
and  the  approach  of  despotic  power.  / 

The  Secretary,  having  determin/d  that  the  Bank  was 
unconstitutional,  and  that  the  people  had  pronounced  against 
the  recharter,  concludes  that  Congress  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  subject.  With  a  provident  foresight,  he  perceives 
the  difficulty  and  embarrassment  into  which  the  currency 
of  the  country  would  be  thrown  on  the  termination  of 
the  Bank  charter ;  to  prevent  which,  he  proceeds  deliber- 
ately, with  a  parental  care,  to  supply  a  new  currency,  "equal 
to  or  better"  than  that  which  Congress  had  supplied.  With 
this  view,  he  determines  on  an  immediate  removal  of  the 
deposits ;  he  puts  them  in  certain  State  institutions,  intend- 
ing to  organize  them,  after  the  fashion  of  the  Empire  State, 
into  a  great  safety-fund  system,  but  which,  unfortunately  for 
the  projectors,  if  not  for  the  country,  the  limited  power  of 


SPEECHES.  321 

the  State  banks  did  not  permit  him  to  effect.  But  a  sub- 
stitute was  found  by  associating  them  in  certain  articles  of 
agreement,  and  appointing  an  inspector-general  of  all  this 
league  of  banks  !  And  all  this  without  law  or  appropria- 
tion !  Is  it  not  amazing  that  it  never  occurred  to  the  Secre- 
tary that  the  subject  of  currency  belonged  exclusively  to 
Congress,  and  that  to  assume  to  regulate  it  was  a  plain 
usurpation  of  the  powers  of  this  department  of  the  Govern- 
ment ? 

Having  thus  assumed  the  power  officially  to  determine 
on  the  constitutionality  of  the  Bank  ;  having  erected  himself 
into  an  organ  of  the  people's  voice,  and  settled  the  question 
of  the  regulation  of  the  currency,  he  next  proceeds  to  assume 
judicial  powers  over  the  Bank.  He  declares  that  the  Bank 
has  transcended  its  powers,  and  has,  therefore,  forfeited  its 
charter ;  for  which  he  inflicts  on  the  institution  the  severe 
and  exemplary  punishment  of  withholding  the  deposits ; 
and  all  this  in  the  face  of  an  express  provision  investing  the 
Court  with  power  touching  the  infraction  of  the  charter, 
directing  in  what  manner  the  trial  should  be  commenced  and 
conducted,  and  securing  expressly  to  the  Bank  the  sacred 
right  of  trial  by  jury  in  finding  the  facts.  All  this  passed 
for  nothing  in  the  eyes  of  the  Secretary,  who  was  too  deeply 
engrossed  in  providing  for  the  common  welfare  to  regard 
either  Congress,  the  Court,  or  the  constitution. 

The  Secretary  next  proceeds  to  supervise  the  general 
operations  of  the  Bank,  pronouncing,  with  authority,  that  at 
one  tune  it  has  discounted  too  freely,  and  at  another  too 
sparingly — without  reflecting  that  all  the  control  which  the 
Government  can  rightfully  exercise  over  the  operations  of 
the  institution  is  through  the  five  directors  who  represent  it 
in  the  Boa^d.  Directors !  Mr.  Calhoun  exclaimed,  did  I  say  ? 
(alluding  to  the  present).  No !  spies  is  their  proper  desig- 
nation. 

I  cannot,  said  Mr.  C.,  proceed  with  the  remarks  which 

VOL.   II. — 21 


322  SPEECHES. 

I  intended  on  the  remainder  of  the  Secretary's  reasons  ;  1 
have  not  patience  to  dwell  on  assumptions  of  power  so  bold, 
so  lawless,  and  so  unconstitutional ;  they  deserve  not  the 
name  of  arguments,  and  I  cannot  waste  time  in  treating  them 
as  such.  There  are,  however,  two  which  I  cannot  pass  over, 
not  because  they  are  more  extraordinary  or  audacious  than 
the  others,  but  for  another  quality,  which  I  choose  not  to 
designate. 

/The  Secretary  alleges  that  the  Bank  has  interfered  with 
trie  politics  of  the  country  jp:f  this  be  true,  it  certainly  is  a 
most  heinous  offence.  The  Bank  is  a  great  public  trust, 
possessing,  for  the  purpose  of  discharging  the  trust,  great 
power  and  influence,  which  it  could  not  pervert  from  the 
object  intended  to  that  of  influencing  the  politics  of  the 
country  without  being  guilty  of  a  great  political  crim^f  In 
making  these  remarks,  I  do  not  intend  to  give  any  coun- 
tenance to  the  truth  of  the  charge  alleged  by  the  Secretary, 
nor  to  deny  to  the  officers  of  the  Bank  the  right  which  belongs 
to  them,  in  common  with  every  citizen,  freely  to  form  polit- 
ical principles,  and  act  on  them  in  their  private  capacity, 
without  permitting  them  to  influence  their  official  conduct. 
But  it  is  strange  it  did  not  occur  to  the  Secretary,  while  he 
was  accusing  and  punishing  the  Bank  on  the  charge  of  inter- 
fering in  the  politics  of  the  country/ that  the  Government 
also  was  a  great  trust,  vested  with  powers  still  more  exten- 
sive, and  influence  immeasurably  greater  than  that  of  the 
Bank,  given  to  enable  it  to  discharge  the  object  for  which  it 
was  created ;  and  that  it  has  no  more  right  to  pervert  its 
power  and  influence  into  the  -means  of /controlling  the  politics 
of  the  country  than  the  Bank  itself. /Can  it  be  unknown  to 
him  that  the  fourth  auditor  of  the  treasury  (an  officer  in  his 
OWTI  department),  the  man  who  has  made  so  prominent  a 
figure  in  this  transaction,  was  daily  and  hourly  meddling  in 
politics,  and  that  he  is  onfc  of  the  principal  political  managers 
of  the  administration  ?  /  Can  he  be  ignorant  that  the  whole 


SPEECHES.  323 

power  of  the  Government  has  been  perverted  into  a  great 
political  machine,  with  a  view  of  corrupting  and  controlling 
the  country  ?  Can  he  be  ignorant  that  the  avowed  and 
open  policy  of  the  Government  is  to  reward  political  friends 
and  punish  political  enemies  ?  and  that,  acting  on  this  prin- 
ciple, it  has  driven  from  office  hundreds  of  honest  and  com- 
petent officers  for  opinion's  sake  only,  and  filled  their  places 
with  devoted  partisans  ?  Can  he  be  ignorant  that  the  real 
offence  of  the  Bank  is  not  that  it  has  intermeddled  in 
politics,  but  because  it  ivould  not  intermeddle  on  the  side  of 
power  ?  /There  is  nothing  more  dignified  than  reproof  from 
the  lips  of  innocence,  or  punishment  from  the  hands  of  jus- 
tice ;  but  change  the  picture — let  the  guilty  reprove  and  the 
criminal  punish,  and  what  more  odious,  more  hateful,  can 
be  presented  to  the  imagination  ? 

The  Secretary  next  tells  us,  in  the  same  spirit,  that  the 
Bank  had  been  wasteful  of  the  public  funds.  That  it  has 
spent  some  thirty,  forty,  or  fifty  thousand  dollars — I  do  not 
remember  the  exact  amount  (trifles  have  no  weight  in  the 
determination  of  so  great  a  question) — in  circulating  essays 
and  speeches  in  defence  of  the  institution,  of  which  sum  one- 
fifth  part — some  seven  thousand  dollars — belonged  to  the 
Government.  Well,  Sir,  if  the  Bank  has  really  wasted  this 
amount  of  the  public  money,  it  is  a  grave  charge.  It  has 
not  a  right  to  waste  a  single  cent ;  but  I  must  say,  in  defence 
of  the  Bank,  that,  assailed  as  it  was  by  the  Executive,  it 
would  have  been  unfaithful  to  its  trust,  both  to  the  stock- 
holders and  to  the  public,  had  it  not  resorted  to  every  proper 
means  in  its  power  to  defend  its  conduct,  and,  among  others, 
the  free  circulation  of  able  and  judicious  publications. 

But  admit  that  the  Bank  has  been  guilty  of  wasting  the 
public  funds  to  the  full  extent  charged  by  the  Secretary, 
I  would  ask  if  he,  the  head  of  the  financial  department  of 
the  Government,  is  not  under  as  high  and  solemn  obligation 
to  take  care  of  the  moneyed  interest  of  the  public  as  the 


324  SPEECHES. 

Bank  itself.  I  would  ask  him  to  answer  me  a  few  simple 
questions  : — How  has  he  performed  this  duty  in  relation  to 
the  interest  which  the  public  holds  in  the  Bank  ?  Has  he 
been  less  wasteful  than  he  has  charged  the  bank  to  have 
been  ?  Has  he  not  wasted  thousands,  where  the  Bank,  even 
according  to  his  own  statement,  has  hundreds  ?  Has  he  not, 
by  withdrawing  the  deposits,  and  placing  them  in  the  State 
banks,  where  the  public  receives  not  a  cent  of  interest,  greatly 
affected  the  dividends  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  in 
which  the  Government,  as  a  stockholder,  is  a  loser  to  the 
amount  of  one-fifth  of  the  diminution  ?  a  sum  which,  I  will 
venture  to  predict,  will  many  fold  exceed  the  entire  amount 
which  the  Bank  has  expended  in  its  defence.  But  this  is  a 
small,  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  public  loss  in  conse- 
quence of  the  course  which  the  Executive  has  pursued  in 
relation  to  the  Bank,  and  which  has  reduced  the  value  of  the 
shares  from  130  to  108  (a  Senator  near  me  says  much  more. 
— It  may  be  ;  I  am  not  particular  in  such  things),  and  on 
which  the  public  sustains  a  corresponding  loss  on  its  share 
of  the  stock,  amounting  to  seven  millions  of  dollars — a  sum 
more  than  two  hundred  fold  greater  than  the  waste  which 
he  has  charged  upon  the  Bank.  Other  administrations  may 
exceed  this  in  talents,  patriotism,  and  honesty ;  but,  cer- 
tainly, in  audacity,  in  effrontery,  it  stands  without  a  par- 
allel ! 

The  Secretary  has  brought  forward  many  and  grievous 
charges  against  the  Bank.  I  will  not  condescend  to  notice 
them — it  is  the  conduct  of  the  Secretary,  and  not  that  of  the 
Bank,  which  is  immediately  under  examination  ;  and  he  has 
no  right  to  drag  the  conduct  of  the  Bank  into  the  issue,  be- 
yond its  operations  in  regard  to  the  deposits.  To  that  extent 
I  am  prepared  to  examine  his  allegations  against  it,  but  be- 
yond that  he  has  no  right — no,  not  the  least — to  arraign 
the  conduct  of  the  Bank  ;  and  I,  for  one,  will  not,  by 
noticing  his  charges  beyond  that  point,  sanction  his  authority 


SPEECHES.  325 

to  call  its  conduct  in  question.  But  let  the  point  in  issue 
be  determined,  and  I,  as  far  as  my  voice  extends,  will  give 
to  those  who  desire  it,  the  means  of  the  freest  and  most  un- 
limited inquiry  into  its  conduct.  I  am  no  partisan  of  the 
Bank — I  am  connected  with  it  in  no  way,  by  moneyed  or 
political  ties.  I  might  say,  with  truth,  that  the  Bank  owes 
as  much  to  me  as  any  other  individual  in  the  country  ;  and 
I  might  even  add,  that  had  it  not  been  for  my  efforts,  it 
would  not  have  been  chartered.  Standing  in  this  relation  to 
the  institution,  a  high  sense  of  delicacy — a  regard  to  inde- 
pendence and  character — has  restrained  me  from  any  con- 
nection with  the  institution  whatever,  except  some  trifling 
accommodations  in  the  way  of  ordinary  business,  which 
were  not  of  the  slightest  importance  either  to  the  Bank  or 
myself. 

But  while  I  shall  not  condescend  to  notice  the  charges  of 
the  Secretary  against  the  Bank,  beyond  the  extent  which  I 
have  stated,  a  sense  of  duty  to  the  institution,  and  regard  to 
the  part  which  I  took  in  its  creation,  compels  me  to  notice 
two  allegations  against  it  which  have  fallen  from  another 
quarter.  It  is  said  that  the  Bank  had  no  agency,  or  at  least 
efficient  agency,  in  the  restoration  of  specie  payments  in  1817, 
and  that  it  had  failed  to  furnish  the  country  with  a  uniform 
and  sound  currency,  as  had  been  promised  at  its  creation. 
Both  of  these  allegations  I  pronounce  to  be  without  just 
foundation.  To  enter  into  a  minute  examination  of  them 
would  carry  me  too  far  from  the  subject,  and  I  must  content 
myself  with  saying  that,  having  been  on  the  political  stage, 
without  interruption,  from  that  day  to  this — having  been  an 
attentive  observer  of  the  question  of  the  currency  throughout 
the  whole  period-^he  Bank  has  been  an  indispensable  agent 
in  the  restoration  of  specie  payments  ;  that,  without  it,  the 
restoration  could  not  have  been  effected  short  of  the  utter 
prostration  of  all  the  moneyed  institutions  of  the  country, 
and  an  entire  depreciation  of  bank  paper ;  and  that  it  has 


326  SPEECHES. 

not  only  restored  specie  payments,  but  has  given  a  currency 
far  more  uniform  between  the  extremes  of  the  country  than 
was  anticipated,  or  even  dreamed  of,  at  the  time  of  its  crea- 
tion. /I  will  say  for  myself,  that  I  did  not  believe  at  the 
tirnef  that  the  exchange  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  West 
would  be  brought  lower  than  two  and  a  half  per  cent. — the 
estimated  expense  then,  including  insurance  and  loss  of  time, 
of  transporting  specie  between  the  two  points.  How  much 
it  was  below  the  anticipated  point  I  need  not  state  :  the 
whole  commercial  world  knows  that  it  was  not  a  fourth  part 
at  the  time  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression.  Though  I  will  not 
notice  the  charges  of  the  Secretary,  for  the  reasons  already 
stated,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  propounding  to  those  who  sup- 
port them  on  this  floor  a  few  plain  questions.  If  there  be  in 
banking  institutions  an  inherent  tendency  so  strong  to  abuse 
and  corruption  as  they  contend — if,  in  consequence  of  this 
tendency,  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  be  guilty  of  the 
enormous  charges  and  corruptions  alleged,  notwithstanding 
its  responsibility  to  the  Government  and  our  control  over  it, 
what  is  to  be  expected  from  an  irresponsible  league  of 
banks,  as  called  by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  Clay), 
over  which  we  have  no  legal  control  ?  If  our  power  of  re- 
newing the  charter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States — if  our 
right  to  vacate  the  charter  by  scire  facias,  in  case  of  miscon- 
duct— if  the  influence  which  the  appointment  of  five  Govern- 
ment directors  gives  us — and,  finally,  if  the  power  which  we 
have  of  appointing  committees  to  examine  into  its  condition, 
are  not  sufficient  to  hold  the  institution  in  check  ;  if,  in 
spite  of  all  these,  it  has,  from  the  innate  corruption  of  such 
institutions,  been  guilty  of  the  enormous  abuses  and  crimes 
charged  against  it,  what  may  we  not  expect  from  the  asso- 
ciated banks,  the  favorites  of  the  treasury,  over  the  renewal 
of  whose  charters  the  Government  has  no  power, — against 
which  it  can  issue  no  scire  facias, — in  whose  direction  it  has 


SPEECHES.  327 

not  a  single  individual, — and  into  whose  conduct  Congress 
can  appoint  no  committee  to  look  ?  With  these  checks 
all  withdrawn,  what  will  be  the  condition  of  the  public 
funds  ? 

I  stated,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  the  outset  of  my  re- 
marks, that,  broad  as  was  the  power  which  the  Secretary 
had  assumed  in  relation  to  the  deposits,  there  was  a  portion 
of  the  transaction  of  a  highly  important  character,  to  which 
he  has  not  alluded,  and  in  relation  to  which  he  has  not  even 
attempted  a  justification.  I  will  now  proceed  to  make  good 
this  assertion  to  the  letter. 

There  is  a  material  difference  between  withholding  money 
from  going  into  the  Bank,  and  withdrawing  it  after  it  has 
been  placed  there.  The  former  is  authorized  in  the  manner 
which  I  have  stated,  under  the  sixteenth  section,  which 
directs,  as  has  been  frequently  said,  that  the  public  money 
shall  be  deposited  in  the  Bank,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  But  neither  that  section,  nor 
any  portion  of  the  act  incorporating  the  Bank,  nor,  in  truth, 
any  other  act,  gives  the  Secretary  any  authority  of  himself 
to  withdraw  public  money  deposited  in  the  Bank.  There  is, 
I  repeat,  a  material  difference  between  withholding  public 
money  from  deposit  and  withdrawing  it.  When  paid  into 
the  place  designated  by  law  as  the  deposit  of  the  public 
money,  it  passes  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  and  then  is 
in  the  treasury  of  the  United  States,  where  it  is  placed  under 
the  protection  of  the  constitution  itself,  and  from  which,  by 
an  express  provision  of  the  constitution,  it  can  only  be  with- 
drawn by  an  appropriation  made  by  law.  So  careful  were 
the  framers  of  the  act  of  1816  to  leave  nothing  to  implica- 
tion, that  express  authority  is  given  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  in  the  fifteenth  section,  to  transfer  the  deposits 
from  one  place  to  another,  for  the  convenience  of  disb~»rse- 
rnents ;  but  which,  by  a  strange  perversion,  is  no\f  at- 
tempted to  be  so  construed  as  to  confer  on  the  Secretarj  Hie 


328  SPEECHES. 

power  to  withdraw  the  money  from  the  deposit,  and  loan  it 
to  favorite  State  banks — I  express  myself  too  favorably,  I 
should  say  give  (they  pay  no  interest) — with  a  view  to  sus- 
tain their  credits  or  enlarge  their  profits — a  power  not  only 
far  beyond  the  Secretary,  but  which  Congress  itself  could  not 
exercise  without  a  flagrant  breach  of  the  constitution.  But 
it  is  said,  in  answer  to  these  views,  that  money  paid  in  de- 
posit into  the  Bank,  as  directed  by  law,  is  not  in  the 
treasury.  I  will  not  stop,  said  Mr.  C.,  to  reply  to  such  an 
objection.  If  it  be  not  in  the  treasury,  where  is  the 
treasury  ?  If  it  be  not  money  in  the  treasury,  where  is  the 
money  annually  reported  to  be  in  the  treasury  ?  where  the 
eight  or  nine  millions  which,  by  the  annual  report  of  the 
Secretary,  are  said  to  be  now  in  the  treasury  ?  Are  we  to 
understand  that  none  of  this  money  is,  in  truth,  in  the 
treasury  ?  that  it  is  floating  about  at  large,  subject  to  be 
disposed  of,  to  be  given  away,  at  the  will  of  the  Executive, 
to  favorites  and  partisans  ?  So  it  would  seem ;  for  it  ap- 
pears, by  a  correspondence  between  the  Treasurer  and  the 
Cashier  of  the  Bank,  derived  through  the  Bank  (the  Secre- 
tary not  deeming  it  worth  while  to  give  the  slightest  in- 
formation of  the  transaction,  as  if  a  matter  of  course),  that 
he  has  drawn  out  two  millions  and  a  quarter  of  the  public 
money  without  appropriation,  and  distributed  it  at  pleasure 
among  his  favorites  ! 

But  it  is  attempted  to  vindicate  the  conduct  of  the  Se- 
cretary on  the  ground  of  precedent.  I  will  not  stop  to  notice 
whether  the  cases  cited  are  in  point,  nor  will  I  avail  myself  of 
the  great  and  striking  advantage  that  I  might  have  on  the 
question  of  precedent.  This  case  stands  alone  and  distinct 
from  all  others.  There  is  none  similar  to  it  in  magnitude 
and  impedance.  I  waive  all  this  :  I  place  myself  on  higher 
grounds^-I  stand  on  the  immovable  principle  that,  on  a  ques- 
tion of  law  and  constitution,  in  a  deliberative  assembly,  there 
is  no  room — no  place  for  precedents.  To  admit  them  would 


SPEECHES.  329 

be  to  make  the  violation  of  to-day  the  law  and  constitution  of 
to-morrow  ;  and  to  substitute  in  the  place  of  the  written  and 
sacred  will  of  the  people  and  the  legislature,  the  infractions  of 
those  charged  with  the  execution  of  the  laws.  Such,  in  ray 
opinion,  is  the  relative  force  of  law  and  constitution  on  one 
side,  as  compared  with  precedents  on  the  othes:  Viewed  in  a 
different  light,  not  in  reference  to  the  law  or  constitution, 
but  to  the  conduct  of  the  officer,  I  am  disposed  to  give  rather 
more  weight  to  precedents,  when  the  question  relates  to  an 
excuse  or  apology  for  the  officer,  in  case  of  infraction.  If  the 
infraction  be  a  trivial  one,  in  a  case  not  calculated  to  excite 
attention,  an  officer  might  fairly  excuse  himself  on  the  ground 
of  precedent ;  but  in  one  like  this,  of  the  utmost  magnitude, 
involving  the  highest  interests  and  most  important  principles 
— where  the  attention  of  the  officer  must  be  aroused  to  a 
most  careful  examination,  he  cannot  avail  himself  of  the  plea 
of  precedent  to  excuse  his  conduct.  It  is  a  case  where  false 
precedents  are  to  be  corrected,  and  not  folloiued.  An  officer 
ought  to  be  ashamed,  in  such  a  case,  to  attempt  to  vindicate 
his  conduct  on  a  charge  of  violating  law  or  constitution  by 
pleading  precedents.  The  principle  in  such  case  is  obvious. 
If  the  Secretary's  right  to  withdraw  public  money  from  the 
treasury  be  clear,  he  has  no  need  of  precedents  to  vindicate 
him.  If  not,  he  ought  not,  in  a  case  of  so  much  magnitude, 
to  have  acted. 

I  have  not,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  touched  a  question,  which 
has  had  so  prominent  a  part  in  the  debate — whether  the 
withholding  of  the  deposits  was  the  act  of  the  Secretary  or 
the  President.  Under  my  view  of  the  subject,  the  question 
is  not  of  the  slightest  importance.  It  is  equally  unauthor- 
ized and  illegal,  whether  done  by  President  or  Secretary ; 
but,  as  the  question  has  been  agitated,  and  as  my  views  do 
not  entirely  correspond  on  this  point  with  those  advocating 
the  side  which  I  do,  I  deem  it  due  to  frankness  to  express 
my  sentiments. 


330  SPEECHES. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  President  removed  the  former 
Secretary,  and  placed  the  present  in  his  place,  expressly  with 
a  view  to  the  removal  of  the  deposits.  I  am  equally  clear, 
under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  that  the  President's 
conduct  is  wholly  indefensible  ;  and,  among  other  objections, 
I  fear  he  had  in  view,  in  the  removal,  an  object  eminently 
dangerous  and  unconstitutional — to  give  an  advantage  to  his 
veto  never  intended  by  the  constitution — a  power  intended 
as  a  shield  to  protect  the  Executive  against  the  encroachment 
of  the  legislative  department — to  maintain  the  present  state 
of  things  against  dangerous  or  hasty  innovation — but  which, 
I  fear,  is,  in  this  case,  intended  as  a  sword  to  defend  the 
usurpation  of  the  Executive./  I  say  I  fear ;  for,  although 
the  circumstances  of  this  case  lead  to  a  just  apprehension 
that  such  is  the  intention,  I  will  not  permit  myself  to  assert 
that  such  is  the  fact — that  so  lawless  and  unconstitutional 
an  object  is  contemplated  by  the  President,  till  his  act  shall 
compel  me  to  believe  to  the  contrary.  But  while  I  thus 
severely  condemn  the  conduct  of  the  President  ia  removing 
the  former  Secretary  and  appointing  the  present/I  must  say 
that,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  a  case  of  the  abuse,  and  not  of  the 
usurpation  of  power.  The  President  has  the  right  of  removal 
from  office.  The  power  of  removal,  wherever  it  exists,  does, 
from  necessity,  involve  the  power  of  general  supervision  ; 
nor  can  I  doubt  that  it  might  be  constitutionally  exercised 
in  reference  to  the  deposits.  Keverse  the  present  case  : 
suppose  the  late  Secretary,  instead  of  being  against,  had  been 
in  favor  of  the  removal,  and  that  the  President,  instead  of 
for,  had  been  against  it,  deeming  the  removal  not  only  inex- 
pedient, but,  under  the  circumstances,  illegal ;  would  any 
man  doubt  that,  under  such  circumstances,  he  had  a  right  to 
remove  his  Secretary,  if  it  were  the  only  means  of  preventing 
the  removal  of  the  deposits  ?  Nay,  would  it  not  be  his  indis- 
pensable duty  to  have  removed  him  ?  and  had  he  not,  would 
he  not  have  been  universally,  and  justly,  held  responsible  ? 


SPEECHES.  331 

I  have  now,  said  Mr.  C.,  offered  all  the  remarks  I  in- 
tended in  reference  to  the  deposit  question  ;  and,  on  review- 
ing the  whole  ground,  I  must  say,  that  the  Secretary,  in 
removing  the  deposits,  has  clearly  transcended  his  power; 
that  he  has  violated  the  contract  between  the  Bank  and  the 
United  States  ;  that,  in  so  doing,  he  has  deeply  injured  that 
large  and  respectable  portion  of  our  citizens  who  have  been 
invited,  on  the  faith  of  the  Government,  to  invest  their  prop- 
erty in  the  institution ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  has 
deeply  injured  the  public  in  its  character  of  stockholder ; 
and,  finally,  that  he  has  inflicted  a  deep  wound  on  the  public 
faith.  To  this  last  I  attribute  the  present  embarrassment 
in  the  currency,  which  has  so  injuriously  affected  all  the 
great  interests  of  the  country.  The  credit  of  the  country  is 
an  important  portion  of  the  currency  of  the  country — credit 
in  every  shape,  public  and  private — credit,  not  only  in  the 
shape  of  paper,  but  that  of  faith  and  confidence  between 
man  and  man — through  the  agency  of  which,  in  all  its  forms, 
the  great  and  mighty  exchanges  of  this  commercial  country, 
at  home  and  abroad,  are,  in  a  great  measure,  effected.  To 
inflict  a  wound  any  where,  particularly  on  the  public  faith,  is 
to  embarrass  all  the  channels  of  currency  and  exchange  ;  and 
it  is  to  this,  and  not  to  the  withdrawing  the  few  millions  of 
dollars  from  circulation,  that  I  attribute  the  present  money- 
ed embarrassment.  Did  I  believe  the  contrary — if  I  thought 
that  any  great  and  permanent  distress  would,  of  itself,  result 
from  winding  up,  in  a  regular  and  legal  manner,  the  present 
or  any  other  Bank  of  the  United  States,  I  would  deem  it  an 
evidence  of  the  dangerous  power  of  the  institution,  and,  to 
that  extent,  an  argument  against  its  existence/  But,  as  it 
is,  I  regard  the  present  embarrassment,  not  as  an  argument 
against  the  Bank,  but  an  argument  against  the  lawless  and 
wanton  exercise  of  .power  on  the  part  of  the  Executive — an 
embarrassment  which  is  likely  to  continue  if  the  deposits  be 
not  restored/  The  banks  which  have  received  them,  at  the 


332  SPEECHES. 

expense  of  the  public  faith,  and  in  violation  of  law,  will  never 
be  permitted  to  enjoy  their  spoils  in  quiet./  No  one  who 
regards  the  subject  in  the  light  in  which  I  do,  can  ever  give 
his  sanction  to  any  law  intended  to  protect  or  carry  through 
the  present  illegal  arrangement ;  on  the  contrary,  all  such 
must  feel  bound  to  wage  perpetual  war  against  an  usurpation 
of  power  so  flagrant  as  that  wlfich  controls  the  present  de- 
posits of  the  public  mone/X  If  I  stand  alone,  said  Mr. 
Calhoun,  I,  at  least,  will  continue  to  maintain  the  contest 
so  long  as  I  remain  in  public  life. 

As  important,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  I  consider  the  ques- 
tion of  the  deposits,  in  all  its  bearings,  public  and  private,  it 
is  one  on  the  surface — a  mere  pretext  to  another,  and  one 
greatly  more  important,  which  lies  beneath,  and  which  must 
be  taken  into  consideration,  to  understand  correctly  all  the 
circumstances  attending  this  extraordinary  transaction.  It 
is  felt  and  acknowledged  on  all  sides  that  there  is  another 
and  a  deeper  question,  which  has  excited  the  profound  sen- 
fcion  and  alarm  which  pervade  the  country. 

If  we  are  to  believe  what  we  hear  from  the  advocates  of 
'the  administration,  we  would  suppose  at  one  time  that  the 
real  question  was,  Bank  or  no  Bank ;  at  another,  that  the 
question  was  between  the  United  States  Bank  and  the  State 
banks  ;  and,  finally,  that  it  was  a  struggle  on  the  part  of  the 
administration  to  guard  and  defend  the  rights  of  the  States 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  General  Government.  The 
administration  the  guardians  and  defenders  of  the  rights  of 
the  States  !  What  shall  I  call  it  ?  audacity  or  hypocrisy  ? 
The  authors  of  the  Proclamation  the  guardians  and  defend- 
ers of  the  rights  of  the  States  !  The  authors  of  the  war 
message  against  a  member  of  this  confederacy — the  authors 
of  the  "  bloody  bill"  the  guardians  and  defenders  of  the 
rights  of  the  States  !  This  a  struggle  for  State  Eights  !  No, 
Sir  :  State  Eights  are  no  morey  •  The  struggle  is  over  for  the 
present.  The  bill  of  the  last  session,  which  vested  in  the 


SPEECHES.  333 

Government  the  right  of  judging  of  the  extent  of  its  pow-  \j)\t. 
ers,  finally  and  conclusively,  and  gave  it  the  power  of  enforc- 
ing its  judgments  by  the  sword,  destroyed  all  distinction  be- 
tween delegated  and  reserved  rights — concentrated  in  the 
Government  the  entire  powers  of  the  system,  and  prostrated 
the  States,  as  pojja/and  helpless  corporations,  at  the  foot  of 
this  sovereigmW" 

Nor  is  it  more  true  that  the  real  question  is,  Bank  or  no 
Bank.  Taking  the  deposit  question  in  the  broadest  sense, — 
suppose,  as  is  contended  by  the  friends  of  the  administra- 
tion, that  it  involves  the  question  of  the  renewal  of  the  char- 
ter, and,  consequently,  the  existence  of  the  Bank  itself, — 
still  the  banking  system  would  stand  almost  untouched  and 
unimpaired.  Four  hundred  banks  would  still  remain  scat- 
tered over  this  wide  republic,  and  on  the  ruins  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  Bank  many  would  rise  to  be  added  to  the  present 
list.  Under  this  aspect  of  the  subject,  the  only  possible 
question  that  could  be  presented  for  consideration  would  be, 
whether  the  banking  system  was  more  safe,  more  beneficial, 
or  more  constitutional,  with  or  without  the  United  States 
Banjj. 

plf,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  this  was  a  question  of  Bank  or  no 
Bank  ;  if  it  involved  the  existence  of  the  banking  system, 
it  would,  indeed,  be  a  great  question — one  of  the  first  magni- 
tude ;  and,  with  my  present  impressions,  long  entertained  and 
daily  deepening,  I  would  hesitate — long  hesitate — before  I 
would  be  found  under  the  banner  of  the  system.  I  have 
great  doubts,  if  doubts  they  may  be  called,  as  to  the  sound- 
ness and  tendency  of  the  whole  system,  in  all  its  modifica- 
tions :  I  have  great  fears  that  it  will  be  found  hostile  to  lib- 
erty and  the  advance  of  civilization — fatally  hostile  to  liberty 
in  our  country,  where  the  system  exists  in  its  worst  and  most 
dangerous  form.  Of  all  institutions  affecting  the  great  ques- 
tion of  the  distribution  of  wealth — a  question  least  explored 
and  the  most  important  of  any  in  the  whole  range  of  politi- 


334  SPEECHES. 

cal  economy — the  banking  institution  has,  if  not  the  great- 
est, one  of  the  greatest,  and,  I  fear,  most  pernicious  influ- 
ences. Were  the  question  really  before  us,  I  would  not  shun 
the  responsibility,  as  great  as  it  might  be,  of  freely  and  fully 
offering  my  sentiments  on  these  deeply  important  poin^; 
but,  as  it  is,  I  must  content  myself  with  the  few  remarks 
which  I  have  thrown  out. 

/What,  then,  is  the  real  question  which  now  agitates  the 
/rauntry  ?  I  answer,  it  is  a  struggle  between  the  executive 
and  legislative  departments  of  the  Government — a  straggle, 
not  in  relation  to  the  existence  of  the  Bank,  but  whether 
Congress  or  the  President  should  have  the  power  to  create  a 
Bank,  and  the  consequent  control  over  the  currency  of  the 
country.  This  is  the  real  question.  Let  us  not  deceive  our- 
selves :  this  league,  this  association  of  banks,  created  by  the 
Executive,  bound  together  by  its  influence,  united  in  com- 
mon articles  of  association,  vivified  and  sustained  by  receiv- 
ing the  deposits  of  the  public  money,  and  having  their  notes 
converted,  by  being  received  every  where  by  the  treasury, 
into  the  common  currency  of  the  country,  is,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  a  Bank  of  the  United  States — the  Executive 
Bank  of  the  United  jBtates,  as  distinguished  from  that  estab- 
lished by  Congress.  /  However  it  might  fail  to  perform  satis- 
factorily the  useful  functions  of  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States  as  incorporated  by  law,  it  would  outstrip  it — far  out- 
strip it — in  all  its  dangerous  qualities,  in  extending  the  pow- 
er, the  influence,  and  the  corruption  of  the  Government/  It 
is  impossible  to  conceive  any  institution  more  admirably  cal- 
culated to  advance  these  objects.  /Not  only  the  selected 
banks,  but  the  whole  banking  institutions  of  the  country, 
and  with  them  the  entire  money  power,  for  the  purpose  of 
speculation,  peculation,  and  corruption,  would  be  placed  un- 
der the  control  of  the  Executive/  A  system  of  menaces  and 
promises  will  be  established  :  of  menace  to  the  banks  in  pos- 
session of  the  deposits,  but  which  might  not  be  entirely  sub- 


SPEECHES.  335 

servient  to  Executive  views  ;  and  of  promise  of  futuro  fa- 
vors to  those  who  may  not  as  yet  enjoy  its  favors.  Between 
the  two,  the  banks  would  he  left  without  influence,  honor,  or 
honesty,  and  a  system  of  speculation  and  stock-johhing  would 
commence,  unequalled  in  the  annals  of  our  countr^  I  fear 
they  have  already  commenced  ;  I  fear  the  means  which  have 
been  put  in  the  hands  of  the  minions  of  power  by  the  re- 
moval of  the  deposits,  and  placing  them  in  the  vaults  of  de- 
pendent banks,  have  extended  their  cupidity  to  the  public 
lands,  particularly  in  the  Southwest,  and  that  to  this  we 
must  attribute  the  recent  phenomena  in  that  quarter — im- 
mense and  valuable  tracts  of  land  sold  at  short  notice  ;  sales 
fraudulently  postponed  to  aid  the  speculators,  with  which,  if 
I  am  not  misinformed,  a  name  not  unknown  to  this  body  has 
performed  a  prominent  part.  But  I  leave  this  to  my  vigi- 
lant and  able  friend  from  Mississippi  (Mr.  Poindexter),  at 
the  head  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  who,  I  doubt 
not,  will  see  justice  done  to  the  public.  As  to  stock-jobbing, 
this  new  arrangement  will  open  a  field  which  Eothschild  him- 
self may  envy.  It  has  been  found  hard  work — very  hard, 
no  doubt — by  the  jobbers  in  stock,  who  have  been  engaged 
in  attempts  to  raise  or  depress  the  price  of  United  States 
Bank  stock  ;  but  no  work  will  be  more  easy  than  to  raise  or 
depress  the  price  of  the  stock  of  the  selected  banks,  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  Executive.  Nothing  more  will  be  required 
than  to  give  or  withhold  deposits  ;  to  draw,  or  abstain  from 
drawing  warrants  ;  to  pamper  them  at  one  time,  and  starve 
them  at  another.  Those  who  would  be  in  the  secret,  and 
who  would  know  when  to  buy  and  when  to  sell,  would  have 
the  means  of  realizing,  by  dealing  in  the  stocks,  whatever 

/rtune  they  might  please. 
So  long  as  the  question  is  one  between  a  Bank  of  the  r 
nited  States  incorporated  by  Congress,  and  that  system  of  .A 
banks  which  has  been  created  by  the  will  of  the  Executive, 
it  is  an  insult  to  the  understanding  to  discourse  on  the  per- 


336  SPEECHES. 

nicious  tendency  and  unconstitutionally  of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States.  To  bring  up  that  question  fairly  and  legiti- 
mately, you  must  go  one  step  further  ;  you  must  divorce  the 
Government  and  the  banking  system.  You  must  refuse  all 
connection  with  banks.  You  must  neither  receive  nor  pay 
away  bank-notes ;  you  must  go  back  to  the  old  system  of 
the  strong  box,  and  of  gold  and  silver/'  If  you  have  a  right 
to  receive  bank-notes  at  all — to  treat  '"them  as  money  by  re- 
ceiving them  in  your  dues,  or  paying  them  away  to  credit- 
ors— you  have  a  right  to  create  a  bank.  Whatever  the  Gov- 
ernment receives  and  treats  as  money,  is  money  in  effect  ; 
and  if  it  be  money,  then  they  have  the  right,  under  the  con- 
stitution, to  regulate  it.  Nay,  they  are  bound  by  a  high  ob- 
ligation to  adopt  the  most  efficient  means,  according  to  the 
nature  of  that  which  they  have  recognized  as  money,  to  give 
it  the  utmost  stability  and  uniformity  of  value.  And  if 
it  be  in  the  shape  of  bank-notes,  the  most  efficient  means  of 
giving  those  qualities  is  a  Bank  of  the  United  States,  incor- 
porated by  Congress.  Unless  you  give  the  highest  practical 
uniformity  to  the  value  of  bank-notes,  so  long  as  you  receive 
them  in  your  dues,  and  treat  them  as  money,  you  violate 
that  provision  of  the  constitution  which  provides  that  taxa- 
tion shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States.  There  is 
no  other  alternative  h  I  repeat,  you  must  divorce  the  Gov- 
ernment entirely  from  the  banking  system,  or,  if  not,  you  are 
bound  to  incorporate  a  bank  as  the  only  safe  and  efficient 
means  of  giving  stability  and  uniformity  to  the  currency^ 
And  should  the  deposits  not  be  restored,  and  the  present 
illegal  and  unconstitutional  connection  between  the  Execu- 
tive and  the  league  of  banks  continue,  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty, 
if  no  one  else  moves,  to  introduce  a  measure  to  prohibit 
Government  from  receiving  or  touching  bank-notes  in  any 
shape  whatever,  as  the  only  means  left  of  giving  safety  and 
stability  to  the  currency,  and  saving  the  country  from  cor- 
ruption and  ruin. 


SPEECHES.  337 

/Viewing  the  question,  in  its  true  light,  as  a  struggle  on 
the  part  of  the  Executive  to  seize  on  the  power  of  Congress, 
and  to  unite  in  the  President  the  power  of  the  sword  and  the 
purse^the  Senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  Clay)  said,  truly, 
and,  let  me  add,  philosophically,  that  we  are  in  the  midst  of 
a  revolution.  Yes,  the  very  existence  of  free  governments 
rests  on  the  proper  distribution  and  organization  of  power; 
and  to  destroy  this  distribution,  and  thereby  concentrate 
powerlrTany  one  of  the  departments,  is  to  effect  a  revolution. 
But,  while  I  agree  with  the  Senator  that  we  are  in  the  midst 
of  a  revolution,  I  cannot  agree  with  him  as  to  the  time  at 
which  it  commenced,  or  the  point  to  which  it  has  progressed. 
Looking  to  the  distribution  of  the  powers  of  the  General 
Government  into  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  depart- 
ments— and  confining  his  views  to  the  encroachments  of  the 
executive  upon  the  legislative,  he  dates  the  commencement 
of  the  revolution  but  sixty  days  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the 
present  Congress.  I,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  take  a  wider  range, 
and  date  it  from  an  earlier  period.  yBesides  the  distribution 
among  the  departments  of  the  General  Government,  there 
belongs  to  our  system  another,  and  a  far  more  important 
division  or  distribution  of  power — that  between  the  States/ 
and  the  General  Government,  the  reserved  and  delegated 
rights,  the  maintenance  of  which  is  still  more  essential  to  the 
preservation  of  our  institutions.  Taking  this  wide  view  of 
our  political  system,  the  revolution  in  the  midst  of  which  we 
are,  began,  not,  as  supposed  by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky, 
shortly  before  the  commencement  of  the  present  session,  but 
many  years  ago,  with  the  commencement  of  the  restrictive 
system  ;  and  terminated  its  first  stage  with  the  passage  of 
the  force  bill  of  the  last  session,  which  absorbed  all  the  rights 
and  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  consolidated  them  in  this 
Government.  While  this  process  was  going  on,  of  absorbing 
the  reserved  powers  of  the  States  on  the  part  of  the  General 
Government,  another  commenced,  of  concentrating  in  the 
VOL.  ii. — 22 


338  SPEECHES. 

Executive  the  powers  of  the  other  two,  the  legislative  and 
judicial  departments  of  the  Government,  which  constitutes 
the  second  stage  of  the  revolution,  in  which  we  have  ad- 
vanced almost  to  the  termination./ 

/The  Senator  from  Kentucky,  in  connection  with  this  part 
m  his  argument,  read  a  striking  passage  from  one  of  the 
finest  pleasing  and  instructive  writers  in  any  language  (Plu- 
tarch), giving  the  description  of  Csesar  forcing  himself,  sword 
in  hand,  into  the  treasury  of  the  Roman  Commonwealth. 
V  We  are  at  the  same  stage  of  our  political  revolution,  and  the 

analogy  between  the  two  cases  is  complete,  varied  only  by 
the  character  of  the  actors  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
times.  That  was  a  case  of  an  intrepid  and  bold  warrior, 
as  an  open  plunderer,  seizing  forcibly  the  treasury  of  the 
country,  which,  in  that  republic,  as  well  as  ours,  was  confid- 
ed to  the  custody  of  the  legislative  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment. The  actors  in  our  case  are  of  a  different  charac- 
ter:  artful  and  cunning  politicians,  and  not  fearless  war- 
riors. They  have  entered  the  treasury,  not  sword  in  hand, 
as  public  plunderers,  but  with  the  false  keys  of  sophistry,  under 


7    t\ 
\  ^V^ 


r 


\sA5^^e  silence  of  midnight.  The  motive  and  object  are  the  same, 
^  varied  only  by  character  and  circumstances.  "  With  money 
I  will  get  men,  and  with  men  money/5  was  the  maxim  of  the 
Roman  plunderer.  With  money  we  will  get  partisans,  with 
partisans  votes,  and  with  votes  money,  is  the  maxim  of 
our  public  pilferers.  With  men  and  money,  Caesar  struck 
down  Roman  liberty  at  the  fatal  battle  of  Pharsalia,  never 
to  rise  again  ;  from  which  disastrous  hour,  all  the  powers  of 
the  Roman  Republic  were  consolidated  in  the  person  of 
Cassar,  and  perpetuated  in  his  line.  With  money  and  cor- 
rupt partisans,  a  great  effort  is  now  making  to  choke  and  stifle 
the  voice  of  American  liberty,  through  all  its  constitutional 
and  legal  organs  ;  by  pensioning  the  press  ;  by  overawing  the 
other  departments  ;  and,  finally,  by  setting  up  a  new  organ, 
composed  of  office-holders  and  partisans,  under  the  name 


SPEECHES.  339 

of  a  National  Convention,  which,  counterfeiting  the  voice  of 
the  people,  will,  if  not  resisted,  in  their  name  dictate  the 
succession;  when  the  deed  will  have  been  done — the  revolu- 
tion completed — and  all  the  powers  of  our  republic,  in  like 
manner,  consolidated  in  the  Executive,  and  perpetuated  by 
his  dictation.  / 

The  Senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  C.)  anticipates  with 
confidence  that  the  small  party  who  were  denounced  at  the 
last  session  as  traitors  and  disunionists  will  be  found,  on  this 
occasion,  standing  in  the  front  rank,  and  manfully  resisting 
the  advance  of  despotic  power.  I,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  heard 
the  anticipation  with  pleasure,  not  on  account  of  the  com- 
pliment which  it  implied,  but  the  evidence  which  it  affords 
that  the  cloud  which  has  been  so  industriously  thrown  over 
the  character  and  motives  of  that  small,  but  patriotic  party, 
begins  to  be  dissipated.  The  Senator  hazarded  nothing  in  the 
prediction.  That  party  is  the  determined,  the  fixed,  and 
sworn  enemy  to  usurpation,  come  from  what  quarter  and 
under  what  form  it  may — whether  from  the  Executive  upon 
the  other  departments  of  this  Government,  or  from  this  Gov- 
ernment on  the  sovereignty  and  rights  of  the  States.  The 
resolution  and  fortitude  with  which  it  maintained  its  position 
at  the  last  session,  under  so  many  difficulties  and  dangers,  in 
defence  of  the  States  against  the  encroachments  of  the 
General  Government,  furnished  evidence  not  to  be  mistaken, 
that  that  party,  in  the  present  momentous  struggle,  will 
be  found  arrayed  in  defence  of  the  rights  of  Congress  against 
the  encroachments  of  the  President.  And  let  me  tell  the 
Senator  from  Kentucky,  said  Mr.  C.,  that,  if  the  present 
struggle  against  Executive  usurpation  be  successful,  it  will 
be  owing  to  the  success  with  which  we,  the  nullifiers — I 
am  not  afraid  of  the  word — maintained  the  rights  of  the 
States  against  the  encroachments  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment at  the  last  session. 

A  very  few  words  will  place  this  beyond  controversy. 


340  SPEECHES. 

To  the  interposition  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  we  are 
indebted  for  the  adjustment  of  the  tariff  question  ;  without 
it,  all  the  influence  of  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  over  the 
manufacturing  interest,  great  as  it  deservedly  is,  would  have 
been  wholly  incompetent,  if  he  had  even  thought  proper  to 
exert  it,  to  adjust  the  question.  The  attempt  would  have 
prostrated  him,  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  and  not  the 
system.  It  was  the  separate  action  of  the  State  that  gave 
him  the  place  to  stand  upon,  created  the  necessity  for  the 
adjustment,  and  disposed  the  minds  of  all  to  compromise. 
Now,  I  put  the  solemn  question  to  all  who  hear  me,  If  the 
tariff  had  not  been  adjusted — if  it  was  now  an  open  question 
— what  hope  of  successful  resistance  against  the  usurpations 
of  the  Executive,  on  the  part  of  this  or  any  other  branch  of 
the  Government,  could  be  entertained  ?  Let  it  not  be  said 
that  this  is  the  result  of  accident — of  an  unforeseen  contin- 
gency. It  was  clearly  perceived,  and  openly  stated,  that  no 
successful  resistance  could  be  made  to  the  corruption  and  en- 
croachments of  the  Executive  while  the  tariff  question  re- 
mained open — while  it  separated  the  North  from  the  South, 
and  wasted  the  energies  of  the  honest  and  patriotic  portions 
of  the  community  against  each  other,  the  joint  effort  of 
which  is  indispensably  necessary  to  expel  those  from  authority 
who  are  converting  the  entire  powers  of  Government  into  a 
corrupt  electioneering  machine  ;  and  that,  without  separate 
State  interposition,  the  adjustment  was  impossible.  The 
truth  of  this  position  rests  not  upon  the  accidental  state  of 
things,  but  on  a  profound  principle  growing  out  of  the  nature 
of  government  and  party  struggles  in  a  free  state.  History 
and  reflection  teach  us  that,  when  great  interests  come  into 
conflict,  and  the  passions  and  the  prejudices  of  men  are 
roused,  such  struggles  can  never  be  composed  by  the  influ- 
ence of  any  individual,  however  great ;  and  if  there  be  not 
somewhere  in  the  system  some  high  constitutional  power  to 
arrest  their  progress,  and  compel  the  parties  to  adjust  the 


SPEECHES.  341 

difference,  they  go  on  till  the  state  falls  by  corruption  or 
violence. 

I  will,  said  Mr.  C.,  venture  to  add  to  these  remarks  an- 
other, in  connection  with  the  point  under  consideration,  not 
less  true.  We  are  not  only  indebted  to  the  cause  which  I  have 
stated  for  our  present  strength  in  this  body  against  the  pre- 
sent usurpation  of  the  Executive,  but  if  the  adjustment  of 
the  tariff  had  stood  alone,  as  it  ought  to  have  done,  without 
the  odious  bill  which  accompanied  it — if  those  who  led  in  the 
compromise  had  joined  the  State  Eights  party  in  their  resist- 
ance to  that  unconstitutional  measure,  and  thrown  the  re- 
sponsibility on  its  real  authors,  the  administration,  their 
party  would  have  been  so  prostrated  throughout  the  entire 
South,  and  their  power,  in  consequence,  so  reduced,  that  they 
would  not  have  dared  to  attempt  the  present  measure  ;  or,  if 
they  had,  they  would  have  been  broken  and  defeated. 

Were  I,  said  Mr.  C.,  to  select  the  case  best  calculated  to 
illustrate  the  necessity  of  resisting  usurpation  at  the  very 
commencement,  and  to  prove  how  difficult  it  is  to  resist  it 
in  any  subsequent  stage  if  not  met  at  first,  I  would  select 
this  very  case.  What,  he  asked,  is  the  cause  of  the  present 
usurpation  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  Executive  ?  What 
the  motive,  the  temptation,  which  has  induced  him  to 
seize  on  the  deposits  ?  What  but  the  large  surplus  reve- 
nue ?  the  eight  or  ten  millions  in  the  public  treasury  beyond 
the  wants  of  the  Government  ?  And  what  has  put  so  large  an 
amount  of  money  in  the  treasury,  when  not  needed  ?  I  answer, 
the  protective  system — that  system  which  graduated  duties, 
not  in  reference  to  the  wants  of  the  Government,  but  in  refer- 
ence to  the  importunities  and  demands  of  the  manufacturers, — 
and  which  poured  millions  of  dollars  into  the  treasury  beyond 
the  most  profuse  demands,  and  even  the  extravagance  of  the 
Government — taken — unlawfully  taken,  from  the  pockets  of 
those  who  honestly  made  it.  I  hold  that  those  who  make 
are  entitled  to  what  they  make  against  all  the  world,  except 


342  SPEECHES. 

the  Government ;  and  against  it,  except  to  the  extent  of  its 
legitimate  and  constitutional  wants  ;  and  that  for  the  Gov- 
ernment to  take  one  cent  more  is  robbery.  In  violation  of 
this  sacred  principle,  Congress  first  removed  the  deposits 
into  the  public  treasury  from  the  pockets  of  those  who  made 
it,  and  where  they  were  rightfully  placed  by  all  laws,  human 
and  divine.  The  Executive,  in  his  turn,  following  the  example, 
has  taken  them  from  that  deposit,  and  distributed  them 
among  favorite  and  partisan  banks.  The  means  used  have 
been  the  same  in  both  cases.  The  constitution  gives  to  Con- 
gress the  power  to  lay  duties  with  a  view  to  revenue.  This 
power,  without  regarding  the  object  for  which  it  was  intend- 
ed, forgetting  that  it  was  a  great  trust  power,  necessarily 
limited,  by  the  very  nature  of  such  powers,  to  the  subject 
and  the  object  of  the  trust,  was  perverted  to  a  use  never  in- 
tended— that  of  protecting  the  industry  of  one  portion  of 
the  country  at  the  expense  of  another ;  and,  under  this  false 
interpretation,  the  money  was  transferred  from  its  natural 
and  just  deposit — the  pockets  of  those  who  made  it — into 
the  public  treasury,  as  I  have  stated.  In  this,  too,  the  Ex- 
ecutive followed  the  example  of  Congress. 

By  the  magic  construction  of  a  few  simple  words — "  un- 
less otherwise  ordered  " — intended  to  confer  on  the  Secretaiy 
of  the  Treasury  a  limited  power — to  give  additional  security 
to  the  public  deposits,  he  has,  in  like  manner,  perverted  this 
power,  and  made  it  the  instrument,  by  similar  sophistry,  of 
drawing  the  money  from  the  treasury,  and  bestowing  it,  as 
I  have  stated,  on  favorite  and  partisan  banks.  Would  to 
God,  said  Mr.  C. — would  to  God  I  could  reverse  the  whole  of 
this  nefarious  operation,  and  terminate  the  controversy  by 
returning  the  money  to  the  pockets  of  the  honest  and  in- 
dustrious citizens,  by  the  sweat  of  whose  brows  it  was  made, 
and  to  whom  only  it  rightfully  belongs.  But,  as  this  can- 
not be  done,  I  must  content  myself  by  giving  a  vote  to  re- 


SPEECHES.  343 

turn  it  to  the  public  treasury,  where  it  was  ordered  to  be 
deposited  by  an  act  of  the  legislature. 

There  is  another  aspect,  said  Mr.  C.,  in  which  this  sub- 
ject may  be  viewed.  We  all  remember  how  early  the  ques- 
tion of  the  surplus  revenue  began  to  agitate  the  country. 
At  a  very  early  period,  a  Senator  from  New  Jersey  (Mr.  Dick- 
erson)  presented  his  scheme  for  disposing  of  it  by  distributing 
it  among  the  States.  The  first  message  of  the  President 
recommended  a  similar  project,  which  was  followed  up  by  a 
movement  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  of  New- York,  and, 
I  believe,  some  of  the  other  States.  The  public  attention 
was  aroused — the  scheme  scrutinized — its  gross  unconstitu- 
tionality  and  injustice,  and  its  dangerous  tendency — its  ten- 
dency to  absorb  the  power  and  existence  of  the  States,  were 
clearly  perceived  and  denounced.  The  denunciation  was  too 
deep  to  be  resisted,  and  the  scheme  was  abandoned.  What 
have  we  now  in  lieu  of  it  ?  What  is  the  present  scheme 
but  a  distribution  of  the  surplus  revenue  ?  A  distribution  at 
the  sole  will  and  pleasure  of  the  Executive. — a  distribution 
to  favorite  banks,  and  through  them,  in  the  shape  of  dis- 
counts and  loans,  to  corrupt  partisans,  as  the  means  of  in- 
creasing political  influence. 

We  have,  said  Mr.  C.,  arrived  at  a  fearful  crisis.  Things 
cannot  long  remain  as  they  are.  It  behooves  all  who  love 
their  country — who  have  affection  for  their  offspring,  or  who 
have  any  stake  in  our  institutions,  to  pause  and  reflect.  Con- 
fidence is  daily  withdrawing  from  the  General  Government. 
Alienation  is  hourly  going  on.  These  will  necessarily  create 
a  state  of  things  inimical  to  the  existence  of  our  institutions, 
and,  if  not  arrested,  convulsions  must  follow ;  and  then 
comes  dissolution  or  despotism,  when  a  thick  cloud  will  be 
thrown  over  the  cause  of  liberty  and  the  future  prospects  of 
our  country. 


344  SPEECHES. 


SPEECH 

On  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Webster  to  recharter  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  deli vered  in  the  Senate, 
March  21st,  1834. 

[NOTE. — The  question  being  upon  granting  leave  to  Mr.  Webster 
to  introduce  into  the  Senate  a  bill  to  recharter,  for  the  term  of  six  years, 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  with  modifications :] 

I  KISE,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  order  to  avail  myself  of  an 
early  opportunity  to  express  my  opinion  on  the  measure  pro- 
posed by  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  and  the  questions 
immediately  connected  with  it ;  under  the  impression  that, 
on  a  subject  so  intimately  connected  with  the  interests  of 
every  class  in  the  community,  there  should  be  an  early  de- 
claration of  their  sentiments  by  the  members  of  this  body, 
so  that  aU  may  know  what  to  expect,  and  on  what  to  cal- 
culate. 

I  shall  vote  for  the  motion  of  the  Senator,  not  because  I 
approve  of  the  measure  he  proposes,  but  because  I  consider 
it  due  in  courtesy  to  grant  leave,  unless  there  be  strong  rea- 
sons to  the  contrary,  which  is  not  the  case  in  this  instance  ; 
but  while  I  am  prepared  to  vote  for  his  motion,  and,  let  me 
add,  to  do  ample  justice  to  his  motives  for  introducing  the 
bill,  I  cannot  approve  of  the  measure  he  proposes.  In  every 
view  which  I  have  been  able  to  take,  it  is  objectionable. 
Among  the  objections,  I  place  the  uncertainty  as  to  its  object. 
It  is  left  entirely  open  to  conjecture  whether  a  renewal  of 
the  charter  is  intended,  or  a  mere  continuance,  with  the  view 
of  affording  the  Bank  time  to  wind  up  its  affairs ;  and  what 
increases  the  uncertainty  is,  if  we  apply  the  provisions  of  the 
proposed  bill  to  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  objects,  it  is 
equally  unsuited  to  either.  If  a  renewal  of  the  charter  bo 


SPEECHES.  345 

intended,  six  years  is  too  short ;  if  a  continuance,  too  long. 
I,  however,  state  this  as  a  minor  objection.  There  is  an- 
other of  far  more  decisive  character  :  it  settles  nothing ;  it 
leaves  every  thing  unfixed  ;  it  perpetuates  the  present  strug- 
gle, which  so  injuriously  agitates  the  country — a  struggle  of 
bank  against  bank — of  one  set  of  opinions  against  another  ; 
and  prolongs  the  whole,  without  even  an  intervening  armis- 
tice, to  the  year  1842  :  a  period  that  covers  two  presidential 
terms,  and  by  inevitable  consequence,  running,  for  two  suc- 
cessive presidential  elections,  the  politics  of  the  country  in- 
to the  bank  question,  and  the  bank  question  into  politics, 
with  the  mutual  corruption  which  must  be  engendered  ; 
keeping,  during  the  whole  period,  the  currency  of  the  coun- 
try, which  the  public  interest  requires  should  have  the  ut- 
most stability,  in  a  state  of  uncertainty  and  fluctuation. 

But  why  should  I  pursue  the  objections  to  the  plan 
proposed  by  the  Senator  ?  He,  himself,  acknowledged  the 
measure  to  be  defective,  and  that  he  would  prefer  one  of  a 
more  permanent  character.  He  has  not  proposed  this  as  the 
best  measure,  but  has  brought  it  forward  under  a  supposed 
necessity — under  the  impression  that  something  must  be 
done — something  prompt  and  immediate,  to  relieve  the  ex- 
isting distress  which  overspreads  the  land.  I  concur  with 
him  in  relation  to  the  distress,  that  it  is  deep  and  extensive ; 
that  it  fell  upon  us  suddenly,  and  in  the  midst  of  prosperity 
almost  unexampled ;  that  it  is  daily  consigning  hundreds  to 
poverty  and  misery ;  blasting  the  hopes  of  the  enterprising ; 
taking  employment  and  bread  from  the  laborer ;  and  working 
a  fearful  change  in  the  relative  condition  of  the  money  deal- 
ers on  one  side,  and  the  man  of  business  on  the  other — rais- 
ing the  former  rapidly  to  the  top  of  the  wheel,  while  it  is 
whirling  the  latter,  with  equal  rapidity,  to  the  bottom. 
While  I  thus  agree  with  the  Senator  as  to  the  distress,  I  am 
also  sensible  that  there  are  great  public  emergencies  in  which 
no  permanent  relief  can  be  afforded,  and  when  the  wisest 


346  SPEECHES. 

are  obliged  to  resort  to  expedients  ;  to  palliate  and  to  tempo- 
rize, in  order  to  gain  time  with  a  view  to  apply  a  more  effec- 
tual remedy.  But  there  are  also  emergencies  of  precisely  the 
opposite  character  ;  when  the  best  and  most  permanent  is  the 
only  practicable  measure,  and  when  mere  expedients  tend  but 
to  distract,  to  divide,  and  confound,  and  thereby  to  delay  or 
defeat  all  relief;  and  such,  viewed  in  all  its  relations  and 
bearing,  I  consider  the  present ;  and  that  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  also  has  not  so  considered  it,  I  attribute  to 
the  fact  that,  of  the  two  questions  blended  in  the  subject 
under  consideration,  he  has  given  an  undue  prominence  to 
that  which  has  by  far  the  least  relative  importance — I  mean 
those  of  the  Bank  and  of  the  currency.  As  a  mere  bank  ques- 
tion, as  viewed  by  the  Senator,  it  would  be  a  matter  of  but  little 
importance  whether  the  renewal  should  be  for  six  years  or  for 
a  longer  period ;  and  a  preference  might  very  properly  be 
given  to  one  or  the  other,  as  it  might  be  supposed  most  likely 
to  succeed  ;  but  I  must  say,  that,  in  my  opinion,  in  selecting 
the  period  of  six  years,  he  has  taken  that  which  will  be  much 
less  likely  to  succeed  than  one  of  a  reasonable  and  proper 
duration.  But  had  he  turned  his  view  to  the  other  and  more 
prominent  question  involved ;  had  he  regarded  the  question 
as  a  question  of  currency,  and  that  the  great  point  was  to 
give  it  uniformity,  permanency,  and  safety  ;  that,  in  effecting 
these  essential  objects,  the  Bank  is  a  mere  subordinate  agent, 
to  be  used  or  not  to  be  used,  and  to  be  modified,  as  to  its 
duration  and  other  provisions,  wholly  in  reference  to  the 
higher  question  of  the  currency,  I  cannot  think  he  would 
ever  have  proposed  the  measure  which  he  has  brought  for- 
ward, which  leaves,  as  I  have  already  said,  every  thing  con- 
nected with  the  subject  in  a  state  of  uncertainty  and  fluctu- 
ation. 

All  feel  that  the  currency  is  a  delicate  subject,  requiring 
to  be  touched  with  the  utmost  caution ;  but  in  order  that  it 
may  be  seen  as  well  as  felt  why  it  is  so  delicate — why  slight 


SPEECHES.  347 

touches,  either  in  depressing  or  elevating  it,  agitate  and  con- 
vulse the  whole  community,  I  will  pause  to  explain  the  cause. 
If  we  take  the  aggregate  property  of  a  community,  that 
which  forms  the  currency  constitutes,  in  value,  a  very  small 
proportion  of  the  whole.  What  this  proportion  is  in  our  coun- 
try and  other  commercial  and  trading  communities,  is  some- 
what uncertain.  I  speak  conjecturally  in  fixing  it  as  one  to 
twenty-five  or  thirty,  though  I  presume  this  is  not  far  from 
the  truth ;  and  yet  this  small  proportion  of  the  property  of 
the  community  regulates  the  value  of  all  the  rest,  and  forms 
the  medium  of  circulation  by  which  all  its  exchanges  are  ef- 
fected ;  bearing,  in  this  respect,  a  striking  similarity,  con- 
sidering the  diversity  of  the  subjects,  to  the  blood  in  the 
human  or  animal  system. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  laws  which  govern  the 
circulation,  we  shall  find  one  of  the  most  important  to  be, 
that,  as  the  circulation  is  decreased  or  increased,  the  rest  of 
the  property  will,  all  other  circumstances  remaining  the  same, 
be  decreased  or  increased  in  value  exactly  in  the  same  pro- 
portion. To  illustrate  :  If  a  community  should  have  an  ag- 
gregate amount  of  property  of  thirty-one  millions  of  dollars, 
of  which  one  million  constitutes  its  currency  ;  and  that  one 
million  should  be  reduced  one-tenth  part,  that  is  to  say,  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  the  value  of  the  rest  will  be  re- 
duced in  like  manner  one-tenth  part,  that  is,  three  millions 
of  dollars.  And  here  a  very  important  fact  discloses  itself, 
which  explains  why  the  currency  should  be  touched  with  such 
delicacy,  and  why  stability  and  uniformity  are  such  essential 
qualities;  I  mean  that  a  small  absolute  reduction  of  the 
currency  makes  a  great  absolute  reduction  of  the  value  of 
the  entire  property  of  the  community,  as  we  see  in  the  case 
supposed  ;  where  a  reduction  of  one  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars in  the  currency  reduces  the  aggregate  value  of  property 
three  millions  of  dollars — a  sum  thirty  times  greater  than  the 
reduction  of  the  currency.  From  this  results  an  important 


348  SPEECHES. 

consideration.  If  we  suppose  the  entire  currency  to  he  in 
the  hands  of  one  portion  of  the  community,  and  the  property 
in  the  hands  of  the  other  portion,  the  former,  by  having  the 
currency  under  their  exclusive  control,  might  control  the 
value  of  all  the  property  in  the  community,  and  possess 
themselves  of  it  at  their  pleasure.  Take  the  case  already 
selected,  and  suppose  that  those  who  hold  the  currency 
diminish  it  one-half  by  abstracting  that  amount  from  circu- 
lation— the  effect  of  which  would  be  to  reduce  the  circulation 
to  five  hundred  thousand  dollars ;  the  value  of  property  would 
also  be  reduced  one-half,  that  is,  fifteen  millions  of  dollars. 
Let  the  process  be  reversed,  and  the  money  abstracted  grad- 
ually restored  to  circulation,  and  the  value  of  the  property 
would  again  be  increased  to  thirty  millions.  It  must  be  ob- 
vious that,  by  alternating  these  processes,  and  purchasing  at 
the  point  of  the  greatest  depression,  when  the  circulation  is 
the  least,  and  selling  at  the  point  of  the  greatest  elevation, 
when  it  is  the  fullest,  the  supposed  moneyed  class,  who  could 
at  pleasure  increase  or  diminish  the  circulation,  by  abstract- 
ing or  restoring  it,  might  also  at  pleasure  control  the  entire 
property  of  the  country.  Let  it  ever  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
the  exchangeable  value  of  the  circulating  medium,  compared 
with  the  property  and  the  business  of  the  community,  re- 
mains fixed,  and  can  never  be  diminished  or  increased  by  in- 
creasing or  diminishing  its  quantity  ;  while,  on  the  contrary, 
the  exchangeable  value  of  the  property,  compared  to  the 
currency,  must  increase  or  decrease  with  every  addition  or 
diminution  of  the  latter.  It  results,  from  this,  that  there  is 
a  dangerous  antagonist  relation  between  those  who  hold  or 
command  the  currency  and  the  rest  of  the  community  ;  but, 
fortunately  for  the  country,  the  holders  of  property  and  of 
the  currency  are  so  blended  as  not  to  constitute  separate 
classes.  Yet  it  is  worthy  of  remark — it  deserves  strongly  to 
attract  the  attention  of  those  who  have  charge  of  the  pub- 
lic affairs — that  under  the  operation  of  the  banking  system, 


SPEECHES.  349 

and  that  peculiar  description  of  property  existing  in  the 
shape  of  credit  or  stock,  public  or  private,  which  so  strikingly 
distinguishes  modern  society  from  all  that  has  preceded  it, 
there  is  a  strong  tendency  to  create  a  separate  moneyed  in- 
terest, accompanied  with  all  the  dangers  which  must  neces- 
sarily result  from  such  interest,  and  which  deserves  to  be 
most  carefully  watched  and  restricted. 

I  do  not  stand  here  the  partisan  of  any  particular  class 
in  society — the  rich  or  the  poor,  the  property  holder  or  the 
money  holder  ;  and,  in  making  these  remarks,  I  am  not  ac- 
tuated by  the  slightest  feeling  of  opposition  to  the  latter. 
My  object  is  simply  to  point  out  important  relations  that 
exist  between  them,  resulting  from  the  laws  which  govern  the 
currency,  in  order  that  the  necessity  of  an  uniform,  stable,  and 
safe  currency,  to  guard  against  the  dangerous  control  of  one 
class  over  another,  may  be  clearly  seen.  I  stand  in  my  place 
simply  as  a  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  to  represent  her  on 
this  floor,  and  to  advance  the  common  interest  of  these  States 
as  far  as  we  have  the  constitutional  power,  and  as  far  as  it 
can  be  done  consistently  with  equity  and  justice  to  the  parts. 
I  am  the  partisan,  I  have  said,  of  no  class,  nor,  let  me  add, 
of  any  political  party.  I  am  neither  of  the  opposition  nor  of 
the  administration.  If  I  act  with  the  former  in  any  in- 
stance, it  is  because  I  approve  of  its  course  on  the  particular 
occasion  ;  and  I  shall  always  be  happy  to  act  with  them 
when  I  do  approve.  If  I  oppose  the  administration — if  I 
desire  to  see  power  change  hands — it  is  because  I  disapprove 
of  the  general  course  of  those  in  authority — because  they 
have  departed  from  the  principles  on  which  they  came  into 
office — because,  instead  of  using  the  immense  power  and 
patronage  put  in  their  hands  to  secure  the  liberty  of  the 
country  and  advance  the  public  good,  they  have  perverted 
them  into  party  instruments  for  personal  objects.  But  mine 
has  not  been,  nor  will  it  be,  a  systematic  opposition.  What- 
ever measure  of  theirs  I  may  deem  right,  I  shall  cheerfully 


350  SPEECHES. 

support ;  and  I  only  desire  that  they  shall  afford  me  more 
frequent  occasions  for  support,  and  fewer  for  opposition,  than 
they  have  heretofore  done. 

With  these  impressions,  and  entertaining  a  deep  convic- 
tion that  an  unfixed,  unstable,  and  fluctuating  currency  is 
to  he  ranked  among  the  most  fruitful  sources  of  evil,  whether 
viewed  politically  or  in  reference  to  the  business  transactions 
of  the  country,  I  cannot  give  my  consent  to  any  measure 
that  does  not  place  the  currency  on  a  solid  foundation.  If 
I  thought  this  determination  would  delay  the  relief  so  neces- 
sary to  mitigate  the  present  calamity,  it  would  be  to  me  a 
subject  of  the  deepest  regret.  I  feel  that  sympathy  which 
I  trust  I  ought  for  the  sufferings  of  so  many  of  my  fellow- 
citizens,  who  see  their  hopes  daily  withered.  I,  however, 
console  myself  with  the  reflection  that  delay  will  not  be  the 
result  of,  but,  on  the  contrary,  relief  will  be  hastened  by,  the 
view  which  I  take  of  the  subject.  I  hold  it  impossible  that 
any  thing  can  be  effected,  regarding  the  subject  as  a  mere 
bank  question.  Viewed  in  that  light,  the  opinion  of  this 
House,  and  of  the  other  branch  of  Congress,  is  probably  de- 
finitively made  up.  In  the  Senate,  it  is  known  that  we  have 
three  parties,  whose  views,  considering  it  as  a  bank  question, 
appear  to  be  irreconcilable.  All  hope,  then,  of  relief  must 
centre  in  some  more  elevated  view — in  considering  it,  in  its 
true  light,  as  a  subject  of  currency.  Thus  regarded,  I  shall 
be  surprised,  if,  on  full  investigation,  there  will  not  appear  a 
remarkable  coincidence  of  opinion,  even  between  those  whose 
views,  on  a  slight  inspection,  would  seem  to  be  contradictory. 
Let  us,  then,  proceed  to  the  investigation  of  the  subject 
under  the  aspect  which  I  have  proposed. 

What,  then,  is  the  currency  of  the  United  States  ?  What 
its  present  state  and  condition  ?  These  are  the  questions 
which  I  propose  now  to  consider,  with  a  view  of  ascertaining 
what  is  the  disease,  what  the  remedy,  and  what  the  means  of 
applying  it,  so  as  to  restore  our  currency  to  a  sound  condition. 


SPEECHES.  351 

The  legal  currency  of  this  country — that  in  which  alone 
debts  can  be  discharged  according  to  law — are  certain  gold, 
silver,  and  copper  coins,  authorized  by  Congress,  under  an 
express  provision  of  the  constitution.  Such  is  the  law. 
What,  now,  are  the  facts  ?  That  the  currency  consists 
almost  exclusively  of  bank-notes  (gold  having  entirely  dis- 
appeared, and  silver,  in  a  great  measure,  expelled  by  banks 
instituted  by  twenty-five  distinct  and  independent  powers), 
issued  under  the  authority  of  the  direction  of  those  institu- 
tions. They  are,  in  point  of  fact,  the  mint  of  the  United 
States.  They  coin  the  actual  money  (for  such  we  must  call 
bank-notes),  and  regulate  its  issue,  and,  consequently,  its 
value.  If  we  inquire  as  to  their  number,  the  amount  of 
their  issue,  and  other  circumstances  calculated  to  show  their 
actual  condition,  we  shall  find,  that  so  rapid  has  been  their 
increase,  and  so  various  their  changes,  that  no  accurate  infor- 
mation can  be  had.  According  to  the  latest  and  best  that 
I  have  been  able  to  obtain,  they  number  at  least  four  hundred 
and  fifty,  with  a  capital  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  and 
forty-five  millions  of  dollars,  with  an  issue  exceeding  seventy 
millions  ;  and  the  whole  of  this  immense  fabric  standing  on 
a  metallic  currency  of  less  than  fifteen  millions  of  dollars,  of 
which  the  greater  part  is  held  by  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States.  If  we  compare  the  notes  in  circulation  with  the 
metallic  currency  in  their  vaults,  we  shall  find  the  proportion 
about  six  to  one ;  and  if  we  compare  the  latter  with  the 
demands  that  may  be  made  upon  the  banks,  we  shall  find 
that  the  proportion  is  about  one  to  eleven.  If  we  examine 
the  tendency  of  the  system  at  this  moment,  we  shall  find 
that  it  is  on  the  increase — rapidly  on  the  increase.  There 
is  now  pending  a  project  of  a  ten  million  bank  before  the 
Legislature  of  New- York ;  but  recently  one  of  five  millions 
was  established  in  Kentucky  ;  within  a  short  period  one  of 
a  large  capital  was  established  in  Tennessee,  besides  others 
in  agitation  in  several  of  the  other  States. 


352  SPEECHES. 

[Here  Mr.  Porter,  of  Louisiana,  said  that  one  of  eleven  millions 
had  just  been  established  in  that  State.] 

This  increase  is  not  accidental.  It  may  be  laid  down  as 
a  law,  that  where  two  currencies  are  permitted  to  circulate 
in  any  country,  one  of  a  cheap  and  the  other  of  a  dear  ma- 
terial, the  former  necessarily  tends  to  grow  upon  the  latter, 
and  will  ultimately  expel  it  from  circulation,  unless  its  ten- 
dency to  increase  be  restrained  by  a  powerful  and  efficient 
check.  Experience  tests  the  truth  of  this  remark,  as  the 
history  of  the  banking  system  clearly  illustrates.  The 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  truly  said  that  the  Bank  of 
England  was  derived  from  that  of  Amsterdam,  as  ours,  in 
turn,  from  that  of  England.  Throughout  its  progress,  the 
truth  of  what  I  have  stated  to  be  a  law  of  the  system  is 
strongly  evinced.  The  Bank  of  Amsterdam  was  merely  a 
bank  of  deposit — a  storehouse  for  the  safe-keeping  of  the 
bullion  and  precious  metals  brought  into  that  commercial 
metropolis,  through  all  the  channels  of  its  widely-extended 
trade.  It  was  placed  under  the  custody  of  the  city  authori- 
ties ;  and,  on  the  deposit,  a  certificate  was  issued  as  evidence 
of  the  fact,  which  was  transferable,  so  as  to  entitle  the  holder 
to  demand  the  return.  An  important  fact  was  soon  disclosed 
— that  a  large  portion  of  the  deposits  might  be  withdrawn, 
and  that  the  residue  would  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  return- 
ing certificates ;  or,  what  is  the  same  in  effect,  that  cer- 
tificates might  be  issued  without  making  a  deposit.  This 
suggested  the  idea  of  a  bank  of  discount  as  well  as  deposit. 
The  fact  thus  disclosed  fell  in  too  much  with  the  genius  of 
the  system  to  be  lost,  and,  accordingly,  when  transplanted 
to  England,  it  suggested  the  idea  of  a  bank  of  discount  and 
of  deposit  ;  the  very  essence  of  which  form  of  banking,  that 
on  which  their  profit  depends,  consisting  in  issuing  a  greater 
amount  of  notes  than  it  has  specie  in  its  vaults.  But  the 
system  is  regularly  progressing,  under  the  impulse  of  the 
laws  that  govern  it,  from  its  present  form  to  a  mere  paper 


SPEECHES.  353 

machine — a  machine  for  fabricating  and  issuing  notes  not 
convertible  into  specie.  Already  has  it  once  reached  this 
condition,  both  in  England  and  the  United  States,  and  from 
which  it  has  been  forced  back,  in  both,  to  a  redemption  of 
its  notes,  with  great  difficulty.  ^r-? 

The  natural  tendency  of  the  system  is  accelerated  in 
country  by  peculiar  causes,  which  have  greatly  increased  its 
progress.  There  are  two  powerful  causes  in  operation.  The 
one  resulting  from  that  rivalry  which  must  ever  take  place 
in  States  situated,  as  ours  are,  under  one  General  Govern- 
ment, and  having  a  free  and  open  commercial  intercourse. 
The  introduction  of  the  banking  system  in  one  State,  neces- 
sarily, on  this  principle,  introduces  it  into  all  the  others,  of 
which  we  have  seen  a  striking  illustration  on  the  part  of 
Virginia  and  some  of  the  other  Southern  States,  which  en- 
tertained, on  principle,  strong  aversion  to  the  system  ;  yet 
were  compelled,  after  a  long  and  stubborn  resistance,  to  yield 
their  objections,  or  permit  their  circulation  to  be  furnished 
by  the  surrounding  States,  at  the  expense  of  their  own 
capital  and  commerce.  The  same  cause  which  thus  compels 
one  State  to  imitate  the  example  of  another,  in  introducing 
the  system  from  self-defence,  will  compel  the  other  States, 
in  like  manner,  and  from  the  same  cause,  to  enlarge  and 
give  increased  activity  to  the  banking  operation,  whenever 
any  one  of  the  States  sets  the  example  of  so  doing  on  its 
part ;  and  thus,  by  mutual  action  and  reaction,  the  whole 
system  is  rapidly  accelerated  to  the  final  destiny  which  I  have 


This  is  strikingly  exemplified  in  the  rapid  progress  of 
the  system  since  its  first  introduction  into  our  country.  At 
the  adoption  of  our  constitution,  forty-five  years  ago,  there 
were  but  three  banks  of  the  United  States,  the  amount  of 
whose  capital  I  do  not  now  recollect,  but  it  was  very  small. 
In  this  short  space,  they  have  increased  to  four  hundred  and 
fifty,  with  a  capital  of  one  hundred  and  forty-five  millions, 
VOL.  n. — 23 


354  SPEECHES. 

as  has  already  been  stated  :  an  increase  exceeding  nearly  a 
hundred  fold  the  increase  of  our  wealth  and  population,  as 
great  as  they  have  been. 

But  it  is  not  in  numbers  only  that  they  have  increased : 
there  has,  in  the  same  time,  been  a  rapid  advance  in  the 
proportion  which  their  notes  in  circulation  bear  to  the  specie 
in  their  vaults.  Some  twenty  or  thirty  years  ago,  it  was  not 
considered  safe  for  the  issues  to  exceed  the  specie  by  more 
than  two  and  a  half  or  three  for  one ;  but  now,  taking  the 
whole,  and  including  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  with 
the  State  banks,  the  proportion  is  about  six  to  one  ;  and 
excluding  that  Bank,  it  would  very  greatly  exceed  that  pro- 
portion. This  increase  of  paper,  in  proportion  to  metal, 
results  from  a  cause  which  deserves  much  more  notice  than 
it  has  heretofore  attracted.  It  originates  mainly  in  the 
number  of  the  banks.  I  will  proceed  to  illustrate  it. 

The  Senator  from  New- York  (Mr.  Wright),  in  assigning 
his  reasons  for  believing  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  to  be  \ 
more  dangerous  than  those  of  the  States,  said  that  one  bank-^/ 
was  more  dangerous  than  many.  This  in  some  respects 
may  be  true  ;  but  in  one,  and  that  a  most  important  one, 
it  is  strikingly  the  opposite — I  mean  in  the  tendency  of  the 
system  to  increase.  Where  there  is  but  one  bank,  the  ten- 
dency to  increase  is  not  near  so  strong  as  where  there  are 
many,  as  illustrated  in  England,  where  the  system  has  ad-? 
vanced  much  less  rapidly,  in  proportion  to  the  wealth  and 
population  of  the  kingdom,  than  in  the  United  States.  Bu| 
where  there  is  no  limitation  as  to  their  number,  the  increa^ 
will  be  inevitable,  so  long  as  banking  continues  to  be  among 
the  most  certain,  eligible,  and  profitable  employments 
capital,  as  now  is  the  case.  With  these  inducements,  thei 
must  be  constant  application  for  new  banks,  whenever  there' 
is  the  least  prospect  of  profitable  employment — banks  to  be 
founded  mainly  on  nominal  and  fictitious  capital,  and  add-^ 
ing  but  little  additional  capital  to  that  already  in  existence 


SPEECHES.  355 

— and  with  our  just  and  natural  aversion  to  monopoly,  it  isC 
difficult,  on  principles  of  equality  and  justice,  to  resist  such 
application.  The  admission  of  a  new  bank  tends  to  diminish 
the  profits  of  the  old,  and,  between  the  aversion  of  the  old 
to  reduce  their  income  and  the  desire  of  the  new  to  acquire 
profits,  the  result  is  an  enlargement  of  discounts  effected  by 
a  mutual  spirit  of  forbearance  ;  an  indisposition  on  the  part 
of  each  to  oppress  the  other  ;  and,  finally,  the  creation  of  a 
common  feeling  to  stigmatize  and  oppose  those,  whether 
banks  or  individuals,  who  demand  specie  in  payment  of  their 
notes.  This  community  of  feeling,  which  ultimately  identi- 
fies the  whole  as  a  peculiar  and  distinct  interest  in  the  com- 
munity, increases,  and  becomes  more  and  more  intense,  just 
in  proportion  as  banks  multiply — as  they  become,  if  I  may 
use  the  expression,  too  populous  ; — when  from  the  pressure 
of  increasing  numbers,  there  results  a  corresponding  increase 
of  issues,  in  proportion  to  their  means  ;  which  explains  the 
present  extraordinary  disproportion  between  specie  and  notes 
in  those  States  where  banks  have  been  most  multiplied  ; 
equal,  in  some,  to  sixteen  to  one.  There  result  from  this 
state  of  things  some  political  considerations,  which  demand 
the  profound  attention  of  all  who  value  the  liberty  and  peace 
of  the  country. 

While  the  banking  system  rests  on  a  solid  foundation^ 
there  will  be,  on  their  part,  but  little  dependence  on  the 
Government,  and  but  little  means  by  which  the  Govern- 
ment can  influence  them,  and  as  little  disposition  on  the 
part  of  the  banks  to  be  connected  with  the  Government ; 
but,  in  the  progress  of  the  system,  when  their  number  is 
greatly  multiplied,  and  their  issues,  in  proportion  to  their 
means,  are  correspondingly  increased,  the  condition  of  the 
banks  becomes  more  and  more  critical.  Every  adverse  event 
in  the  commercial  world,  or  political  movement  that  dis- 
turbs the  existing  state  of  things,  agitates  and  endangers 
them.  They  become  timid  and  anxious  for  their  safety,  and 


356  SPEECHES. 

necessarily  court  those  in  power,  in  order  to  secure  their  pro-, 
tection.  Property  is,  in  its  nature,  timid,  and  seeks  pro- 
tection, and  nothing  is  more  gratifying  to  Government  than 
to  become  a  protector.  An  union  is  the  result ;  and  when 
that  union  takes  place — when  the  Government,  in  fact,  be- 
comes the  bank  direction,  regulating  its  favors  and  accom- 
modations— the  downfall  of  liberty  is  at  hand.  Are  there 
no  indications  that  we  are  not  far  removed  from  this  state  of 
things  ?  Do  we  not  behold  in  the  events  which  have  so\ 
deeply  agitated  us  within  the  last  few  months,  and  which 
have  interrupted  all  the  business  transactions  of  this  com- 
munity, a  strong  tendency  to  this  union  on  the  part  of  a/ 
department  of  this  Government,  and  a  portion  of  the  bank/ 
ing  system  ?  Has  not  this  union  been,  in  fact,  consum- 
mated in  the  largest  and  most  commercial  of  the  States  ? 
What  is  the  safety-fund  system  of  New- York  but  an  union 
between  the  banks  and  the  State,  and  a  consummation,  by 
law,  of  that  community  of  feeling  in  the  banking  system 
which  I  have  attempted  to  illustrate,  the  object  of  which  is 
to  extend  their  discounts,  and  to  obtain  which,  the  interior 
banks  of  that  State  have  actually  put  themselves  under  the 
immediate  protection  of  the  Government  ?  The  effects  have 
been  striking.  Already  have  they  become  substantially  mere 
paper  machines,  several  having  not  more  than  from  one  to 
two  cents  in  specie  to  the  dollar,  when  compared  with  their  cir- 
culation ;  and,  taking  the  aggregate,  their  average  condition 
will  be  found  to  be  but  little  better.  I  care  not,  said  Mr.  C., 
whether  the  present  commissioners  are  partisans  of  the  pre- 
sent State  administration  or  not,  or  whether  the  assertion  of 
the  Senator  from  New- York  (Mr.  Wright),  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  State  has  not  interfered  in  the  control  of 
these  institutions,  be  correct.  Whether  it  has  taken  place 
or  not,  interference  is  inevitable.  In  such  state  of  weakness, 
a  feeling  of  dependence  is  unavoidable  ;  and  the  control  of 
the  Government  over  the  action  of  the  banks,  whenever  that 


SPEECHES.  357 

control  shall  become  necessary  to  subserve  the  ambition  or 
the  avarice  of  those  in  power,  is  certain. 

Such  is  the  strong  tendency  of  our  banks  to  terminate 
their  career,  in  the  paper  system — in  an  open  suspension  of 
specie  payment.  Whenever  that  event  occurs,  the  progress 
of  convulsion  and  revolution  will  be  rapid.  The  currency 
will  become  local,  and  each  State  will  have  a  powerful  inter- 
est to  depreciate  its  currency  more  rapidly  than  its  neigh- 
bor, as  means,  at  the  same  time,  of  exempting  itself  from 
the  taxes  of  the  Government,  and  drawing  the  commerce  of 
the  country  to  its  ports.  This  was  'strongly  exemplified 
after  the  suspension  of  specie  payments  during  the  late  war, 
when  the  depreciation  made  the  most  rapid  progress,  till 
checked  by  the  establishment  of  the  present  Bank  of  the 
United  States ;  and  when  the  foreign  trade  of  the  country 
was  as  rapidly  converging  to  the  point  of  the  greatest  depre- 
ciation, with  a  view  of  exemption  from  duties,  by  paying 
the  debased  currency  of  the  place. 

What,  then,  is  the  disease  which  afflicts  the  system  ? 
what  the  remedy  ?  and  what  the  •  means  of  applying  it  ? 
These  are  the  questions  which  I  shall  next  proceed  to  con- 
sider. What  I  have  already  stated  points  out  the  disease. 
It  consists  in  a  great  and  growing  disproportion  between  the 
metallic  and  paper  circulation  of  the  country,  effected  through 
the  instrumentality  of  the  banks  ;  a  disproportion  daily  and 
hourly  increasing,  under  the  impulse  of  most  powerful  causes, 
which  are TapidTy Accelerating  the  country.. tojthat .state  of 
convulsioiilind  revolution  which  I  have  indicated.  The  rem- 
edy  is,  to  arrest  its  future  progress,  and  to  diminish  the  ex- 
isting_disprpportion — to  increase  the  metals  and  to  dimmish 
the  paper — advancing  till  the  currency  shall  be  restored  to  a 
sound,  safe,  antf  settled  condition.  On  these  two  points  all 
must  be  agreed.  There  is  no  man  of  any  party,  capable  of 
reflecting,  and  who  will  take  the  pains  to  inform  himself,  but 
must  agree  that  our  currency  is  in  a  dangerous  condition,  and 


358  SPEECHES. 

that  the  danger  is  increasing  ;  nor  is  there  any  one  who  can 
doubt  that  the  only  safe  and  effectual  remedy  is  to  diminish 
this  disproportion  to  which  I  have  referred.  Here  the  ex- 
tremes unite  :  the  Senator  from  Missouri  (Mr.  Benton),  and 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster),  who  stands 
here  as  the  able  and  strenuous  advocate  of  the  banking  sys- 
tem, are  on  this  point  united,  and  must  move  from  it  in  the 
same  direction  ;  though  it  may  he  the  design  of  the  one 
to  go  through,  and  of  the  other  to  halt  after  a  moderate  ad- 
vance. 

There  is  another  point  on  which  all  must  be  agreed — that 
the  remedy  must  be  gradual — the  change  from  the  present  to 
another  and  sounder  condition,  slow  and  cautious.  The  ne- 
cessity for  this  results  from  that  highly  delicate  nature  of 
currency  which  I  have  already  illustrated.  Any  sudden  and 
great  change  from  our  present  to  even  a  sounder  condition 
would  agitate  and  convulse  society  to  the  centre.  On  anoth- 
er point  there  can  be  but  little  disagreement.  Whatever 
may  be  the  different  theoretical  opinions  of  the  members  of 
the  Senate  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  reformation  of  the 
currency  should  be  carried — even  those  who  think  it  may  be 
carried  practically  and  safely  to  the  restoration  of  a  metallic 
currency,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  paper,  must  agree  that 
the  restoration  ought  not  to  be  carried  further  than  a  cau- 
tious and  slow  experience  shall  prove  it  can  be  done,  consist- 
ently with  the  prosperity  of  the  country,  in  the  existing 
fiscal  and  commercial  condition  of  the  world.  To  go  beyond 
the  point  to  which  experience  shall  show  it  is  proper  to  go, 
would  be  to  sacrifice  the  public  interest  merely  to  a  favorite 
conception.  There  may  be  ultimately  a  disagreement  of 
opinion  where  that  point  is ;  but,  since  all  must  be  agreed  to 
move  forward  in  the  same  direction,  and  at  the  same  pace, 
let  us  set  out  in  the  spirit  of  harmony  and  peace,  though  we 
intend  to  stop  at  different  points.  It  may  be  that,  enlight- 
ened by  experience,  those  who  intended  to  stop  at  the  near- 


SPEECHES.  359 

est  point,  may  be  disposed  to  advance  further,  and  that  those 
who  intended  the  furthest,  may  halt  on  this  side,  so  that 
finally  all  may  agree  to  terminate  the  journey  together. 

This  brings  us  to  the  question, — How  shall  so  salutary  a 
change  be  effected  ?  What_the  jnejms,  and  the  mode  of  ap- 
plication ?  A  great  and  difficult  question,  on  which  some 
diversity  of  opinion  may  be  expected. 

No  one  can  be  more  sensible  than  I  am  of  the  responsi- 
bility that  must  be  incurred  in  proposing  measures  on  ques- 
tions of  so  much  magnitude,  and  which,  in  so  distracted  a 
state,  must  affect  seriously  great  and  influential  interests. 
But  this  is  no  time  to  shun  responsibility.  The  danger  is 
great  and  menacing,  and  delay  hazardous,  if  not  ruinous. 
While,  however,  I  would  not  shun,  I  have  not  sought  the 
responsibility.  I  have  waited  for  others  ;  and  had  any  one 
proposed  an  adequate  remedy,  I  would  have  remained  silent. 
And  here,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  let  me  express  the  deep  regret 
which  I  feel  that  the  administration,  with  all  the  weight  of 
authority  which  belongs  to  its  power  and  immense  patronage, 
had  not,  instead  of  the  deposit  question,  which  has  caused 
such  agitation  and  distress,  taken  up  the  great  subject  of  the 
currency ;  examined  it  gravely  and  deliberately  in  all  its 
bearings  ;  pointed  out  its  diseased  condition ;  designated  the 
remedy,  and  proposed  some  safe,  gradual,  and  effectual  means 
of  applying  it.  Had  this  course  been  pursued,  my  zealous 
and  hearty  co-operation  would  not  have  been  wanting.  Per- 
mit me,  also,  to  express  a  similar  regret  that  the  administra- 
tion, having  failed  in  this  great  point  of  duty,  the  opposi- 
tion, with  all  its  weight  and  talents,  headed,  on  this  question, 
by  the  distinguished  and  able  Senator  from  Massachusetts, 
who  is  so  capable  of  comprehending  this  subject  in  all  its 
bearings,  had  not  brought  forward,  under  its  auspices,  some 
permanent  system  of  measures,  based  upon  a  deliberate  and 
mature  investigation  into  the  cause  of  the  existing  disease, 
and  calculated  to  remedy  the  disordered  state  of  the  curren- 


360  SPEECHES. 

cy.  What  might  have  been  brought  forward  by  them  with 
such  fair  prospects  of  success,  has  been  thrown  on  more  in- 
competent hands,  unaided  by  patronage  or  influence,  save 
only  that  power  which  truth,  clearly  developed,  and  honestly 
and  zealously  advanced,  may  be  supposed  to  possess,  and  on 
which  I  must  wholly  rely. 

But  to  return  to  the  subject.  Whatever  diversity  of  sen- 
timent there  may  be  as  to  the  means,  on  one  point  all  must 
be  agreed  :  nothing  effectual  can  be  done,  no  check  inter- 
posed to  restore  or  arrest  the  progress  of  the  system,  by  the 
action  "of  the  States.  The  reasons  already  assigned  to  prove 
that  banking  by  one  State  compels  all  others  to  bank,  and 
that  the  excess  of  banking  in  one,  in  like  manner,  compels 
all  others  to  like  excess,  equally  demonstrate  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  the  States,  acting  separately,  to  interpose  any 
means  to  prevent  the  catastrophe  which  certainly  awaits  the 
system,  and  perhaps  the  Government  itself,  unless  the  great 
and  growing  danger  to  which  I  refer  be  timely  and  effectu- 
ally arrested*  There  is  no  power  any  where  but  in  this  Gov- 
ernment— the  joint  agent  of  all  the  States,  and  through 
which  a  concert  of  action  can  be  effected,  adequate  to. this 
great  task.  The  responsibility  is  upon  us,  and  upon  us  alone. 
TEe"m"eans,  if  means  there  be,  must  be  applied  by  our  hands, 
or  not  applied  at  all — a  consideration,  in  so  great  an  emer- 
gency, and  in  the  presence  of  such  imminent  danger,  calcu- 
lated, I  should  suppose,  to  arouse  even  the  least  patriotic. 

What  means  do  we  possess,  and  how  can  they  be  ap- 
plied ? 

If  the  entire  banking  system  were  under  the  immediate 
control  of  the  General  Government,  there  would  be  no  diffi-  \ 
culty  in  devising  a  safe  and  effectual  remedy  to  restore  the     )• 
equilibrium,  so  desirable,  between  the  specie  and  the  paper/ 
which  compose  our  currency.      But  the  fact  is  otherwise. 
With  the  exception  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  all 
the  other  banks  owe  their  origin  to  the  authority  of  the  seV- 


SPEECHES.  361 

/eral  States,  and  are  under  their  immediate  control ;  which 
.    presents  the  great  difficulty  experienced  in  devising  the  pro- 
\  per  means  of  effecting  the  remedy  which  all  feel  to  be  so  de- 
sirable. 

Among  the  means  which  have  been  suggested,  a  Senator 
from  Virginia,  not  now  a  member  of  this  body  (Mr.  Rives), 
proposed  to  apply  the  taxing  power  to  suppress  the  circula- 
tion of  small  notes,  with  a  view  of  diminishing  the  paper 
and  increasing  the  specie  circulation.  The  remedy  would  be 
simple  and  effective,  but  is  liable  to  great  objection.  The 
taxing  power  is  odious  under  any  circumstances  ;  it  would  be 
doubly  so  when  called  into  exercise  with  an  overflowing 
treasury  ;  and  still  more  so,  with  the  necessity  of  organizing 
an  expensive  body  of  officers  to  collect  a  single  tax,  and  that 
of  an  inconsiderable  amount.  But  there  is  another,  and  of 
itself  a  decisive  objection.  It  would  be  unconstitutional — 
palpably  and  dangerously  so.  All  political  powers,  as  I 
stated  on  another  occasion,  are  trust  powers,  and  limited  in 
their  exercise  by  the  subject  and  object  of  the  grant.  The 
tax  power  was  granted  to  raise  revenue  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  supplying  the  necessary  means  of  carrying  on  the  opera- 
tions of  the  Government.  To  pervert  this  power  from  the 
object  thus  intended  by  the  constitution,  to  that  of  suppress- 
ing the  circulation  of  bank-notes,  would  be  to  convert  it 
from  a  revenue  into  a  penal  power — a  power  in  its  nature 
and  object  essentially  different  from  that  intended  to  be 
granted  in  the  constitution  ;  and  a  power  which  in  its  full 
extension,  if  once  admitted,  would  be  sufficient  of  itself  to 
give  an  entire  control  to  this  Government  over  the  property 
and  the  pursuits  of  the  community,  and  thus  concentrate  and 
consolidate  in  it  the  entire  power  of  the  system. 

Rejecting,  then,  the  taxing  power,  there  remain  two  ob- 
vious and  direct  means  in  possession  of  the  Government, 
which  may  be  brought  into  action  to  effect  the  object  intend- 
ed ;  but  neither  of  which,  either  separately  or  jointly,  is  of 


362  SPEECHES. 

sufficient  efficacy,  however  indispensable  they  may  be  as  a 
part  of  an  efficient  system  of  measures,  to  correct  the  pres- 
ent, or  repress  the  growing  disorders  of  the  currency  ;  I  mean 
that  provision  in,  the  constitution  which  empowers  Congress 
to  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of  foreign 
coin, — and  the  power  of  prohibiting  any  thing  but  the  legal 
currency  to  be  received,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  in  the 
dues  of  the  Government.  The  mere  power  of  coining  and 
regulating  the  value  of  coins,  of  itself,  and  unsustained  by 
any  other  measure,  can  exercise  but  a  limited  control  over 
the  actual  currency  of  the  country,  and  is  inadequate  to 
check  excess  or  correct  disorder,  as  is  demonstrated  by  the 
present  diseased  state  of  the  currency.  Congress  has  had, 
from  the  beginning,  laws  upon  the  statute-books  to  regulate 
the  value  of  coins  ;  and  at  an  early  period  of  the  Govern- 
ment the  mint  was  erected,  and  has  been  in  active  operation 
ever  since  ;  and  yet,  of  the  immense  amount  which  has  been 
coined,  a  small  residue  only  remains  in  the  country,  the  great 
body  having  been  expelled  under  the  banking  system.  To 
give  efficiency  to  this  power,  then,  some  other  must  be  com- 
bined with  it.  The  most  immediate  and  obvious  is  that 
which  has  been  suggested — of  excluding  all  but  specie  in  the 
receipts  of  the  Government.  This  measure  would  be  effec- 
tual to  a  certain  extent ;  but  with  a  declining  income,  which 
must  take  place  under  the  operation  of  the  act  of  the  last 
session  to  adjust  the  tariff,  and  which  must  greatly  reduce 
the  revenue  (a  point  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  re- 
formation and  regeneration  of  our  institutions),  the  efficacy 
of  the  measure  must  be  correspondingly  diminished.  From 
the  nature  of  things,  it  cannot  greatly  exceed  the  average  of 
the  government  deposits,  which  I  hope  will,  before  many 
years,  be  reduced  to  the  smallest  possible  amount,  so  as  to 
prevent  the  possibility  of  the  recurrence  of  the  shameful  and 
dangerous  state  of  things  which  now  exists,  and  which  has 
been  caused  by  the  vast  amount  of  the  surplus  revenue. 


SPEECHES.  363 

But  there  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  strong  objection  against  re- 
sorting to  this  measure,  resulting  from  the  fact  that  an  exclu- 
sive receipt  of  specie  in  the  treasury  would,  to  give  it  effica- 
cy, and  to  prevent  extensive  speculation  and  fraud,  require 
an  entire  disconnection  on  the  part  of  the  Government  with 
the  banking  system  in  all  its  forms,  and  a  resort  to  the  strong 
box  as  the  means  of  preserving  and  guarding  its  funds — a 
means,  if  practicable,  in  the  present  state  of  things  liable  to 
the  objection  of  being  far  less  safe,  economical,  and  efficient 
than  the  present. 

What,  then,  Mr.  Calhoun  inquired,  what  other  means 
do  we  possess,  of  sufficient  efficacy,  in  combination  with 
those  to  which  I  have  referred,  to  arrest  its  progress,  and 
correct  the  disordered  state  of  the  currency  ?  This  is  the 
deeply  important  question,  and  here  some  division  of  opinion 
must  be  expected,  however  united  we  may  be,  as  I  trust  we 
are  thus  far,  on  all  other  points.  I  intend  to  meet  this 
question  explicitly  and  directly,  without  reservation  or  con- 
cealment. 

/After  a  full  survey  of  the  whole  subject,  I  see  none, — I 
can  conjecture  no  means  of  extricating  the  country  from  the 
present  danger,  and  to  arrest  its  further  increase,  but  a 
bank — the  agency  of  which,  in  some  form,  or  under  some 
authority,  is  indispensable.  The  country  has  been  brought 
into  the  present  distressed  state  of  currency  by  banks,  and 
must  be  extricated  by  their  agency.  /We  must,  in  a  word, 
use  a  bank  to  unbank  the  banks,  to  flie  extent  that  may  be 
necessary  to  restore  a  safe  and  stable  currency— just  as  we 
apply  snow  to  a  frozen  limb  in  order  to  restore  vitality  and 
circulation,  or  hold  up  a  burn  to  the  flame  to  extract  the  in- 
flammation. All  must  see  that  it  is  impossible  to  suppress 
the  banking  system  at  once.  It  must  continue  for  a  time. 
Its  greatest  enemies,  and  the  advocates  of  an  exclusive 
specie  circulation,  must  make  it  a  part  of  their  system  to 
tolerate  the  banks  for  a  longer  or  a  shorter  period.  To  sup- 


364  SPEECHES. 

press  them  at  once  would,  if  it  were  possible,  work  a  greater 
revolution — a  greater  change  in  the  relative  condition  of  the 
various  classes  of  the  community — than  would  the  conquest 
of  the  country  by  a  savage  enemy.  What,  then,  must  be 
done  ?/ 1  answer,  a  new  and  safe  system  must  gradually 
grow  up  under,  and  replace  the  old ;  imitating,  in  this  re- 
spect, the  beautiful  process  which  we  sometimes  see  of  a 
wounded  or  diseased  part  in  a  living  organic  body  gradually 
superseded  by  the  healing  process  of  nature/ 

How  is  this  to  be  effected  ?  How  is  a  bank  to  be  used 
as  the  means  of  correcting  the  excess  of  the  banking  system  ? 
and  what  bank  is  to  be  selected  as  the  agent  to  effect  this 
salutary  change  ?  I  know,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  a  diversity  of 
opinion  will  be  found  to  exist,  as  to  the  agent  to  be  selected, 
among  those  who  agree  on  every  other  point,  and  who,  in 
particular,  agree  on  the  necessity  of  using  some  bank  as  the 
means  of  effecting  the  object  intended :  one  preferring  a 
simple  recharter  of  the  existing  Bank  ;  another,  the  charter  of 
a  new  Bank  of  the  United  States  ;  a  third,  a  new  Bank  in- 
grafted upon  the  old ;  arid  a  fourth,  the  use  of  the  State 
banks  as  the  agent.  I  wish,  said  Mr.  0.,  to  leave  all  these 
as  open  questions,  to  be  carefully  surveyed  and  compared 
with  each  other,  calmly  and  dispassionately,  without  preju- 
dice or  party  feeling  ;  and  that  to  be  selected,  which,  on  the 
whole,  shall  appear  to  be  the  best,  the  most  safe,  the  most 
efficient,  the  most  prompt  in  application,  and  the  least  lia- 
ble to  constitutional  objections.  It  would,  however,  be 
wanting  in  candor  on  my  part  not  to  declare  that  my  impres- 
sion is,  that/a  new  Bank  of  .the  United  States,  ingrafted  upon 
the  old,  will  be  found,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  to  combine  the  greatest  advantages,  and  to  be  liable  to 
the  fewest  objections ;  but  this  impression  is  not  so  firmly 
fixed  as  to  be  inconsistent  with  a  calm  review  of  the  whole 
ground,  or  to  prevent  my  yielding  to  the  conviction  of  reason, 
should  the  result  of  such  review  prove  that  any  other  is 


SPEECHES.  365 

preferabler  Among  its  peculiar  recommendations  may  be 
ranked  the  consideration  that,  while  it  would  afford  the 
means  of  a  prompt  and  effectual  application  for  mitigating 
and  finally  removing  the  existing  distress,  it  would,  at  the 
same  time,  open  to  the  whole  community  a  fair  opportunity 
of  participating  in  the  advantages  of  the  institution,  be  they 
what  they  may. 

Let  us,  then,  suppose  (in  order  to  illustrate,  and  not  to 
indicate  a  preference)  that  the  present  Bank  be  selected  as 
the  agent  to  effect  the  intended  object.  What  provisions 
will  be  necessary  ?  I  will  suggest  those  that  have  occurred 
to  me,  mainly,  however,  with  a  view  of  exciting  the  reflec- 
tions of  those  much  more  familiar  with  banking  operations 
than  myself,  and  who,  of  course,  are  more  competent  to  form 
a  correct  judgment  of  their  practical  effect. 

Let,  then,  the  Bank  charter  be  renewed  for  twelve  years 
after  the  expiration  of  the  present  term,  with  such  modifica- 
tions and  limitations  as  may  be  judged  proper ;  and  that 
after  that  period  it  shall  issue  no  notes  under  ten  dollars — 
that  Government  shall  not  receive  in  its  dues  any  sum  less 
than  ten  dollars,  except  in  the  legal  coins  of  the  United 
States  ;'  that  it  shall  not  receive  in  its  dues  the  notes  of  any 
bank  that  issues  notes  of  a  denomination  less  than  five  dol- 
lars ;  and  that  the  United  States  Bank  shall  not  receive  in 
payment,  or  on  deposit,  the  notes  of  any  bank  whose  notes 
are  not  receivable  in  the  dues  of  the  Government,  nor  the 
notes  of  any  bank  which  may  receive  those  of  any  other 
whose  notes  are  not  receivable  by  the  Government.  At  the 
expiration  of  six  years  from  the  commencement  of  the  re- 
newed charter,  let  the  Bank  be  prohibited  from  issuing  any 
note  under  twenty  dollars,  and  let  no  sum  under  that 
amount  be  received  in  dues  of  the  Government,  except  in 
specie  ;  and  let  the  value  of  gold  be  raised  at  least  equal  to 
that  of  silver,  to  take  effect  immediately  ;  so  that  the  coun- 
try may  be  replenished  with  the  coin,  the  lightest  and  the 


366  SPEECHES. 

most  portable  in  proportion  to  its  value,  to  take  the  place  of 
the  receding  bank-notes.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  state, 
that  at  present  the  standard  value  of  gold  is  less  than  that 
of  silver ;  the  necessary  effect  of  which  has  been  to  expel 
gold  entirely  from  circulation,  and  to  deprive  us  of  a  coin  so 
well  calculated  for  the  circulation  of  a  country  so  great  in  ex- 
tent, and  having  so  vast  an  intercouise,  commercial,  social, 
and  political,  between  all  its  parts,  as  ours.  As  an  addition- 
al recommendation  to  raise  its  relative  value,  gold  has,  of 
late,  become  an  important  product  of  three  considerable 
States  of  the  Union — Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Georgia 
— to  the  industry  of  which  the  measure  proposed  would  give 
a  strong  impulse,  and  which,  in  turn,  would  greatly  increase 
the  quantity  produced. 

Such  are  the  means  which  have  occurred  to  me.  There 
are  members  of  this  body  far  more  competent  to  judge  of 
their  practical  operation  than  myself ;  and  as  my  object  is 
simply  to  suggest  them  for  their  reflection,  and  for  that  of 
others  who  are  more  familiar  with  this  part  of  the  subject,  I 
will  not  at  present  enter  into  an  inquiry  as  to  their  efficiency, 
with  a  view  of  determining  whether  they  are  fully  adequate 
to  effect  the  object  in  view  or  not.  There  are,  doubtless, 
others  of  a  similar  description,  and  perhaps  more  efficacious, 
that  may  occur  to  the  experienced,  which  I  would  freely 
embrace,  as  my  object  is  to  adopt  the  best  and  most  efficient. 
And  it  may  be  hoped,  that  if,  on  experience,  it  should  be 
found  that  neither  these  provisions,  nor  any  other  in  the 
power  of  Congress,  are  fully  adequate  to  effect  the  important 
reform  which  I  have  proposed,  the  co-operation  of  the  States 
may  be  secured,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  suppressing  the  cir- 
culation of  notes  under  five  dollars,  where  such  are  permitted 
to  be  issued  under  their  authority. 

I  omitted,  in  the  proper  place,  to  state  my  reason  for 
suggesting  twelve  years  as  the  term  for  the  renewal  of  the 
charter  of  1^e  Bank.  It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  long  enough 


SPEECHES.  367 

to  permit  the  agitation  and  distraction  which  now  disturbs 
the  country  to  subside,  while  it  is  sufficiently  short  to  enable 
us  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  full  benefit  of  the  light  of  expe- 
rience, which  may  be  expected  to  be  derived  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  system  under  its  new  provisions.  But  there  is 
another  reason  which  appears  to  me  to  be  entitled  to  great 
weight.  The  charter  of  the  Bank  of  England  has  recently 
been  renewed  for  the  term  of  ten  years,  with  very  important 
changes,  calculated  to  furnish  much  experience  upon  the 
nature  of  banking  operations  and  currency.  It  is  highly 
desirable,  if  the  Bank  charter  should  be  renewed,  or  a  new 
Bank  created,  that  we  should  have  the  full  benefit  of  that 
experience  before  the  expiration  of  the  term,  which  would  be 
effected  by  fixing  the  period  I  have  designated.  But  as  my 
object  in  selecting  the  recharter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States  was  simply  to  enable  me  to  present  the  suggestions  I 
have  made  in  the  clearest  form,  and  not  to  advocate  the  rechar- 
ter, I  shall  omit  to  indicate  many  limitations  and  provisions, 
which  seem  to  me  to  be  important  to  be  considered,  when 
the  question  of  its  permanent  renewal  is  presented,  should  it 
ever  be.  Among  others,  I  entirely  concur  in  the  suggestion 
of  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  of  fixing  the  rate  of  interest  at 
five  per  cent. — a  suggestion  of  importance,  and  to  which  but 
one  objection  can,  in  my  opinion,  be  presented — I  mean  the 
opposing  interest  of  existing  State  institutions,  all  of  which 
discount  at  higher  rates,  and  which  may  defeat  any  measure 
of  which  it  constitutes  a  part.  In  addition,  I  will  simply  say 
that  I,  for  one,  shall  feel  disposed  to  adopt  such  provisions 
as  are  best  calculated  to  secure  the  Government  from  any 
supposed  influence  on  the  part  of  the  Bank,  or  the  Bank  from 
any  improper  interference  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  or 
which  may  be  necessary  to  protect  the  rights  or  interests  of 
the  States. 

Having  now  stated  the  means  necessary  to  apply  the 
remedy,  I  am  thus  brought  to  the  question,  Can  the  measure 


368  SPEECHES. 

succeed  ?  which  brings  up  the  inquiry  of  how  far  it  may  be 
expected  to  receive  the  support  of  the  several  parties  which 
now  compose  the  Senate,  and  on  which  I  shall  next  proceed 
to  make  a  few  remarks. 

First,  then,  can  the  State  Rights  party  give  it  their  sup- 
port ?  that  party  of  which  I  am  proud  of  being  a  member, 
and  for  which  I  entertain  so  strong  an  attachment — the 
stronger  because  we  are  few  among  many.  In  proposing  this 
question,  I  am  not  ignorant  of  their  long-standing  constitu- 
tional objection  to  the  Bank,  on  the  ground  that  this  was 
intended  to  be,  as  it  is  usually  expressed,  a  hard-money  Gov- 
ernment, whose  circulating  medium  was  intended  to  consist 
of  the  precious  metals,  and  for  which  object  the  power  of 
coining  money,  and  regulating  the  value  thereof,  was  express- 
ly conferred  by  the  constitution.  I  know  how  long  and  how 
sincerely  this  opinion  has  been  entertained,  and  under  how 
many  difficulties  it  has  been  maintained.  It  is  not  my  in- 
tention to  attempt  to  change  an  opinion  so  firmly  fixed  ;  but 
I  may  be  permitted  to  make  a  few  observations,  in  order  to 
present  what  appears  to  me  to  be  the  true  question  in  refer- 
ence to  this  constitutional  point,  in  order  that  we  may  fully 
comprehend  the  circumstances  under  which  we  are  placed  in 
reference  to  it. 

With  this  view,  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  inquire 
whether,  in  conferring  the  power  to  coin  money,  and  to  reg- 
ulate the  value  thereof,  the  constitution  intended  to  limit 
the  power  strictly  to  coining  money  and  regulating  its  value, 
or  whether  it  intended  to  confer  a  more  general  power  over 
the  currency  ;  nor  do  I  intend  to  inquire  whether  the  word 
coin  is  limited  simply  to  the  metals,  or  may  be  extended  to 
other  substances,  if,  through  a  gradual  change,  they  may  be- 
come the  medium  of  the  general  circulation  of  the  world.  I 
pass  these  points.  Whatever  opinion  there  may  be  enter- 
tained in  reference  to  them,  we  must  all  agree,  as  a  fixed 
principle  in  our  system  of  thinking  on  constitutional  ques- 


SPEECHES.  369 

tions,  that  the  power  under  consideration,  like  other  powers, 
is  a  trust  power  ;  and  that,  like  all  such  powers,  it  must  be 
so  exercised  as  to  effect  the  object  of  the  trust  as  far  as  it 
may  be  practicable.  Nor  can  we  disagree  that  the  object  of 
the  power  was  to  secure  to  these  States  a  safe,  uniform  and 
stable  currency.  The  nature  of  the  power,  the  terms  used  to 
convey  it,  the  history  of  the  times,  the  necessity,  with  the 
creation  of  a  common  government,  of  having  a  common  and 
uniform  circulating  medium,  and  the  power  conferred  to 
punish  those,  who,  by  counterfeiting,  may  attempt  to  debase 
and  degrade  the  coins  of  the  country,  all  proclaim  this  to  be 
the  object. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  inquire  whether,  admitting  this 
to  be  the  object,  Congress  is  not  bound  to  use  all  the  means 
in  its  power  to  give  this  safety,  this  stability,  this  uniformity 
to  the  currency,  for  which  the  power  was  conferred  ;  nor  to 
inquire  whether  the  States  are  not  bound  to  abstain  from  acts, 
on  their  part,  inconsistent  with  them  ;  nor  to  inquire  whether 
the  right  of  banking,  on  the  part  of  a  State,  does  not  directly, 
and  by  immediate  consequence,  injuriously  affect  the  cur- 
rency— whether  the  effect  of  banking  is  not  to  expel  the  specie 
currency,  which,  according  to  the  assumption  that  this  is  a 
hard-money  Government,  it  was  the  object  of  the  constitution 
to  furnish,  in  conferring  the  power  to  coin  money ;  or  whether 
the  effect  of  banking  does  not  necessarily  tend  to  diminish 
the  value  of  a  specie  currency  as  certainly  as  clipping  or  re- 
ducing its  weight  would  ;  and  whether  it  has  not,  in  fact,  since 
its  introduction,  reduced  the  value  of  the  coins  one-half.  Nor 
do  I  intend  to  inquire  whether  Congress  is  not  bound  to 
abstain  from  all  acts,  on  its  part,  calculated  to  affect  inju- 
riously the  specie  circulation,  and  whether  the  receiving  any 
thing  but  specie,  in  its  dues,  must  not  necessarily  so  affect  it 
by  diminishing  the  quantity  in  circulation,  and  depreciating 
the  value  of  what  remains.  All  these  questions  Heave  open. 
I  decide  none  of  them.  There  is  one,  however,  that  I  will 
VOL.  H. — 24 


370  SPEECHES. 

decide.  If  Congress  has  a  right  to  receive  any  thing  else 
than  specie  in  its  dues,  they  have  the  right  to  regulate  its 
value  ;  and  have  a  right,  of  course,  to  adopt  all  necessary  and 
proper  means,  in  the  language  of  the  constitution,  to  effect 
the  object.  It  matters  not  what  they  receive,  tobacco,  or 
any  thing  else,  this  right  must  attach  to  it.  I  do  not  assert 
the  right  of  receiving,  but  I  do  hold  it  to  be  incontrovertible, 
that,  if  Congress  were  to  order  the  dues  of  the  Government 
to  be  paid,  for  instance,  in  tobacco,  they  would  have  the  right, 
nay,  more,  they  would  be  bound  to  use  all  necessary  and 
proper  means  to  give  it  an  uniform  and  stable  value — inspec- 
tions, appraisement,  designation  of  qualities,  and  whatever 
else  would  be  necessary  to  that  object.  So,  on  the  same 
principle,  if  they  receive  bank-notes,  they  are  equally  bound 
to  use  all  means  necessary  and  proper,  according  to  the  pecu- 
liar nature  of  the  subject,  to  give  them  uniformity,  stability, 
and  safety. 

The  very  receipt  of  bank-notes,  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, in  its  dues,  would,  it  is  conceded,  make  them  mon- 
ey, as  far  as  the  Government  may  be  concerned,  and,  by  a 
necessary  consequence,  would  make  them,  to  a  great  extent, 
the  currency  of  the  country.  I  say  nothing  of  the  positive 
provisions  in  the  constitution  which  declares  that  "  all  duties, 
imposts,  and  excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United 
States,"  which  cannot  be,  unless  that  in  which  they  are  paid 
should  also  have,  as  nearly  as  practicable,  an  uniform  value 
throughout  the  country.  To  effect  this,  if  bank-notes  are 
received,  the  banking  power  is  necessary  and  proper  within 
the  meaning  of  the  constitution ;  and,  consequently,  if  the 
Government  has  the  right  to  receive. bank-notes  in  its  dues, 
the  power  becomes  constitutional.  Here  lies,  said  Mr.  Cal- 
houn,  the  real  constitutional  question  :  Has  the  Government 
a  right  to  receive  bank-notes,  or  not  ?  The  question  is  not 
upon  the  mere  power  of  incorporating  a  bank,  as  it  has  been 
commonly  argued  :  though  even  in  that  view  there  would  be 


SPEECHES.  371 

as  great  a  constitutional  objection  to  any  act  on  the  part  of 
the  Executive,  or  any  other  branch  of  the  Government,  which 
should  unite  any  association  of  State  banks  into  one  system, 
as  the  means  of  giving  the  uniformity  and  stability  to  the  cur- 
rency which  the  constitution  intends  to  confer.  The  very 
act  of  so  associating  or  uniting  them  into  one,  by  whatever 
name  called,  or  by  whatever  department  performed,  would 
be,  in  fact,  an  act  of  incorporation. 

But,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  my  object,  as  I  have  stated,  is  not 
to  discuss  the  constitutional  questions,  nor  to  determine  whe- 
ther the  Bank  be  constitutional  or  not.  It  is,  I  repeat,  to 
show  where  the  difficulty  lies — a  difficulty  which  I  have  felt 
from  the  time  I  first  came  into  the  public  service.  I  found 
then,  as  now,  the  currency  of  the  country  consisting  almost 
entirely  of  bank-notes.  I  found  the  Government  intimately 
connected  with  the  system  :  receiving  bank-notes  in  its  dues, 
and  paying  them  away,  under  its  appropriations,  as  cash. 
The  fact  was  beyond  my  control :  it  existed  long  before  my 
time,  and  without  my  agency  ;  and  I  was  compelled  to  act 
on  the  fact  as  it  existed,  without  deciding  on  the  many  ques- 
tions which  I  have  suggested  as  connected  with  this  subject, 
and  on  many  of  which  I  have  never  yet  formed  a  definite 
opinion.  No  one  can  pay  less  regard  to  precedent  than  I  do, 
acting  here,  in  my  representative  and  deliberative  character, 
on  legal  or  constitutional  questions  ;  but  I  have  felt  from  the 
beginning  the  full  force  of  the  distinction  so  sensibly  taken 
by  the  Senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Leigh)  between  doing  and 
undoing  an  act,  and  which  he  so  strongly  illustrated  in  the 
case  of  the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  The  constitutionality  of 
that  act  was  doubted  by  many  at  the  time,  and  among  others 
by  its  author  himself ;  yet  he  would  be  considered  a  mad- 
man who,  coming  into  political  life  at  this  late  period,  would 
now  seriously  take  up  the  question  of  the  constitutionality 
of  the  purchase,  and,  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was 
unconstitutional,  should  propose  to  rescind  the  act,  and  eject 


372  SPEECHES. 

from  the  Union  two  flourishing  States  and  a  growing  Terri- 
tory :  nor  would  it  be  an  act  of  much  less  madness  thus  to 
treat  the  question  of  the  currency,  and  undertake  to  suppress 
at  once  the  system  of  bank  circulation  which  has  been  grow- 
ing up  from  the  beginning  of  the  Government,  which  has 
penetrated  into  and  connected  itself  with  every  department 
of  our  political  system,  on  the  ground  that  the  constitution 
intended  a  specie  circulation  ;  or  who  would  treat  the  consti- 
tutional question  as  one  to  be  taken  up  de  novo,  and  decided 
upon  elementary  principles,  without  reference  to  the  impe- 
rious state  of  facts. 

But  in  raising  the  question  whether  my  friends  of  the 
State  Eights  party  can  consistently  vote  for  the  measure 
which  I  have  suggested,  I  rest  not  its  decision  on  the  ground 
that  their  constitutional  opinion  in  reference  to  the  Bank  is 
erroneous.  I  assume  their  opinion  to  be  correct — I  place  the 
argument,  not  on  the  constitutionality  or  unconstitutional- 
ity,  but  on  wholly  different  ground.  I  lay  it  down  as  an  in- 
controvertible principle,  that,  admitting  an  act  to  be  uncon- 
stitutional, but  of  such  a  nature  that  it  cannot  be  reversed 
at  once,  or  at  least  without  involving  gross  injustice  to  the 
community,  we  may,  under  such  circumstances,  vote  for  its 
temporary  continuance — for  undoing  gradually,  as  the  only 
practicable  mode  of  terminating  it — consistently  with  the 
strictest  constitutional  objects.  The  act  of  the  last  session, 
adjusting  the  tariff,  furnishes  an  apt  illustration.  All  of  us 
believed  that  measure  to  be  unconstitutional  and  oppressive, 
yet  we  voted  for  it  without  supposing  that  we  violated  the 
constitution  in  so  doing,  although  it  allowed  upwards  of  eight 
years  for  the  termination  of  the  system,  on  the  ground,  that 
to  reverse  it  at  once,  would  spread  desolation  and  ruin  over  a 
large  portion  of  the  country.  I  ask  the  principle  in  that 
case  to  be  applied  to  this.  It  is  equally  as  impossible  to 
terminate  suddenly  the  present  system  of  paper  currency, 
without  spreading  a  desolation  still  wider  and  deeper  over 


SPEECHES.  .  373 

the  face  of  the  country.  If  it  can  be  reversed  at  all — if  we 
can  ever  return  to  a  metallic  currency,  it  must  be  by  grad- 
ually undoing  what  we  have  done,  and  to  tolerate  the  system 
while  the  process  is  going  on.  This,  the  measure  which  I 
have  suggested,  proposes  ;  for  the  period  of  twelve  years  to 
be  followed  up  by  a  similar  process,  as  far  as  a  slow  and  cau- 
tious experience  shall  prove  we  may  go  consistently  with  the 
public  interest,  even  to  its  entire  reversal,  if  experience  shall 
prove  we  may  go  so  far,  which,  however,  I,  for  one,  do  not 
anticipate  ;  but  the  effort,  if  it  should  be  honestly  commenc- 
ed and  pursued,  would  present  a  case  every  way  parallel  with 
the  instance  of  the  tariff  to  which  I  have  already  referred. 
I  go  further,  and  ask  the  question,  Can  you,  consistently  with 
your  obligation  to  the  constitution,  refuse  to  vote  for  a  mea- 
sure, if  intended,  in  good  faith,  to  effect  the  object  already 
stated  ?  Would  not  a  refusal  to  vote  for  the  only  means  of 
terminating  it  consistently  with  justice,  and  without  involv- 
ing the  horror  of  revolution,  amount  in  fact,  and  in  all  its 
practical  consequences,  to  a  vote  to  perpetuate  a  state  of 
things  which  all  must  acknowledge  to  be  eminently  uncon- 
stitutional, and  highly  dangerous  to  the  liberty  of  the  coun- 
try ? 

But  I  know  it  will  be  objected  that  the  constitution 
ought  to  be  amended,  and  the  power  conferred  in  express 
terms.  I  feel  the  full  force  of  the  objection.  I  hold  the  po- 
sition to  be  sound,  that,  when  a  constitutional  question  has 
been  agitated  involving  the  powers  of  the  Government,  which 
experience  shall  prove  cannot  be  settled  by  reason,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  bank  question,  those  who  claim  the  power  ought 
to  abandon  it,  or  obtain  an  express  grant  by  an  amendment 
of  the  constitution ;  and  yet,  even  with  this  impression,  I 
would,  at  the  present  time,  feel  much,  if  not  insuperable 
objection,  to  vote  for  an  amendment,  till  an  effort  shall  be 
fairly  made,  in  order  to  ascertain  to  what  extent  the  power 
might  be  dispensed  with,  as  I  have  proposed. 


374  SPEECHES. 

I  hold  it  a  sound  principle,  that  no  more  power  should  be 
conferred  upon  the  General  Government  than  is  indispens- 
able ;  and  if  experience  should  prove  that  the  power  of  bank- 
ing is  indispensable,  in  the  actual  condition  of  the  currency 
of  this  country  and  of  the  world  generally,  I  should  even 
then  think  that,  whatever  power  ought  to  be  given,  should 
be  given  with  such  restrictions  and  limitations  as  would  limit 
it  to  the  smallest  amount  necessary,  and  guard  it  with  the 
utmost  care  against  abuse.  As  it  is,  without  farther  expe- 
rience, we  are  at  a  loss  to  determine  how  little  or  how  much 
would  be  required  to  correct  a  disease  which  must,  if  not 
corrected,  end  in  convulsions  and  revolution.  I  consider  the 
whole  subject  of  banking  and  credit  as  undergoing  at  this 
time,  throughout  the  civilized  world,  a  progressive  change, 
of  which  I  think  I  perceive  many  indications.  Among  the 
changes  in  progression,  it  appears  to  me  there  is  a  strong 
tendency  in  the  banking  system  to  resolve  itself  into  two 
parts — one  becoming  a  bank  of  circulation  and  exchange,  for 
the  purpose  of  regulating  and  equalizing  the  circulating  me- 
dium, and  the  other  assuming  more  the  character  of  private 
banking ;  of  which  separation  there  are  indications  in  the 
tendency  of  the  English  system,  particularly  perceptible  in 
the  late  modifications  of  the  charter  of  the  Bank  of  England. 
In  the  mean  time,  it  would  be  wise  in  us  to  avail  ourselves 
of  the  experience  of  the  next  few  years  before  any  change 
be  made  in  the  constitution,  particularly  as  the  course  which, 
it  seems  to  me,  it  would  be  advisable  to  pursue,  would  be  the 
same,  whether  the  power  be  expressly  conferred  or  not. 

I  next  address  myself  to  the  members  of  the  opposition, 
who  principally  represent  the  commercial  and  manufacturing 
portions  of  the  country,  where  the  banking  system  has  been 
the  farthest  extended,  and  where  a  larger  portion  of  the  pro- 
perty exists  in  the  shape  of  credit  than  in  any  other  section, 
and  to  whom  a  sound  and  stable  currency  is  most  necessary, 
and  the  opposite  most  dangerous.  You  have  no  constitu- 


SPEECHES.  375 

tional  objection  ;  to  you  it  is  a  mere  question  of  expediency. 
Viewed  in  this  light,  can  you  vote  for  the  measure  suggest- 
ed ?  A  measure  designed  to  arrest  the  approach  of  events 
which,  I  have  demonstrated,  must,  if  not  arrested,  create 
convulsions  and  revolutions  ;  and  to  correct  a  disease  which 
must,  if  not  corrected,  subject  the  currency  to  continued 
agitations  and  fluctuations  ;  and,  in  order  to  give  that  per- 
manence, stability,  and  uniformity,  which  is  so  essential  to 
your  safety  and  prosperity.  To  effect  this  may  require  some 
diminution  of  the  profits  of  banking,  some  temporary  sacri- 
fice of  interest ;  but  if  such  should  be  the  fact,  it  will  be 
compensated  more  than  a  hundred  fold  by  increased  security 
and  durable  prosperity.  If  the  system  must  advance  in  its 
present  course  without  a  check,  and  if  explosion  must  follow, 
remember  that  where  you  stand  will  be  the  crater — should 
the  system  quake,  under  your  feet  the  chasm  will  open  that 
will  ingulf  your  institutions  and  your  prosperity. 

Can  the  friends  of  the  administration  vote  for  this  mea- 
sure ?  If  I  understand  their  views,  as  expressed  by  the 
Senator  from  Missouri,  behind  me  (Mr.  Benton),  and  the 
Senator  from  New- York  (Mr.  Wright),  and  other  distin- 
guished members  of  the  party,  and  the  views  of  the  President 
as  expressed  in  reported  conversations,  I  see  not  how  they 
can  reject  it.  They  profess  to  be  the  advocates  of  a  metal- 
lic currency.  I  propose  to  restore  it  by  the  most  effectual 
means  that  can  be  devised ;  gradually  and  slowly,  and  to 
the  extent  that  experience  may  show  that  it  can  be  done  con- 
sistently with  due  regard  to  the  public  interest.  Further  no 
one  can  desire  to  go.  If  the  means  I  propose  are  not  the  best 
and  most  effectual,  let  better  and  more  effectual  be  devised. 
If  the  process  which  I  propose  be  too  slow  or  too  fast,  let  it 
be  accelerated  or  retarded.  Permit  me  to  add  to  these  views 
what,  it  appears  to  me,  those  whom  I  address  ought  to  feel 
with  deep  and  solemn  obligations  of  duty.  They  are  the 
advocates  and  the  supporters  of  the  administration.  It  is 


376  .   SPEECHES. 

now  conceded,  almost  universally,  that  a  rash  and  precipitate 
act  of  the  Executive,  to  speak  in  the  mildest  terms,  has 
plunged  this  country  into  deep  and  almost  universal  distress. 
You  are  the  supporters  of  that  measure — you  personally 
incur  the  responsibility  by  that  support.  How  are  its  conse- 
quences to  terminate  ?  Do  you  see  the  end  ?  Can  things 
remain  as  they  are,  with  the  currency  and  the  treasury  of 
the  country  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the  Executive  ? 
And  by  what  scheme,  what  device,  do  you  propose  to  extri- 
cate the  country  and  the  constitution  from  their  present 
dangers  ? 

I  have  now  said  what  I  intended.  I  have  pointed  out, 
without  reserve,  what  I  believe  in  my  conscience  to  be  for  the 
public  interest.  May  what  I  have  said  be  received  as  favorably 
as  it  has  been  sincerely  uttered.  In  conclusion,  I  have  but 
to  add,  that,  if  what  I  have  said  shall  in  any  degree  contri- 
bute to  the  adjustment  of  this  question,  which  I  believe  can- 
not be  left  open  without  imminent  danger,  I  shall  rejoice  ; 
but  if  not,  I  shall  at  least  have  the  consolation  of  having 
discharged  my  duty. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Bill,  to  repeal  the  Revenue  Collection,  or 
Force  Bill,  delivered  in  the  Senate,  April  9th, 
1834. 

I  HAVE,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  introduced  this  bill  from  a 
deep  conviction  that  the  act  which  it  proposes  to  repeal  is, 
in  its  tendency,  subversive  of  our  political  institutions,  and 
fatal  to  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  the  country  ;  which  I 
trust  to  be  able  to  establish  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Senate, 


SPEECHES.  377 

should  I  be  so  fortunate  as  to  obtain  a  dispassionate  and 
favorable  hearing. 

In  resting  the  repeal  on  this  ground,  it  is  not  my  inten- 
tion to  avail  myself  of  the  objections  to  the  details  of  the  act, 
repugnant  as  many  of  them  are  to  the  principles  of  our  Gov- 
ernment. In  illustration  of  the  truth  of  this  assertion/ I 
might  select  that  provision  which  vests  in  the  President,  in 
certain  cases,  of  which  he  is  made  the  judge,  the  entire  force 
of  the  country,  civil,  military,  and  naval,  with  the  implied 
power  of  pledging  the  public  faith  for  whatever  expenditure 
he  may  choose  to  incur  in  its  application.  And,  to  prove 
how  dangerous  it  is  to  vest  such  extraordinary  powers  in  the 
Executive,  I  might  avail  myself  of  the  experience  which  we 
have  had  in  the  last  few  months  of  the  aspiring  character  of 
that  department  of  the  Government,  and  which  has  furnish- 
ed conclusive  evidence  of  the  danger  of  vesting  in  it  even  a 
very  limited  discretion./  It  is  not  for  me  to  judge  of  the  pro- 
priety of  the  course  which  the  members  of  this  body  may 
think  proper  to  pursue  in  reference  to  the  question  under 
consideration  ;  but  I  must  say  that  I  am  at  a  loss  to  under- 
stand how  any  one,  who  regards  as  I  do  the  acts  to  which  I 
have  referred,  as  palpable  usurpations  of  power,  and  as  in- 
dicating on  the  part  of  the  Executive  a  dangerous  spirit  of 
aggrandizement,  can  vote  against  the  bill  under  consideration, 
and  thereby  virtually  vote  to  continue  in  the  President  the 
extraordinary  and  dangerous  power  in  question. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  provisions  of  the  act  which 
confers  this  power  will  expire,  by  its  own  limitation,  at  the 
termination  of  the  present  session.  It  is  true  it  will  then 
cease  to  be  law ;  but  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  precedent, 
unless  the  act  be  expunged  from  the  statute-book,  will 
live  for  ever,  ready,  on  any  pretext  of  future  danger,  to  be 
quoted  as  an  authority  to  confer  on  the  chief  magistrate 
similar,  or  even  more  dangerous  powers,  if  more  dangerous 
can  be  devised.  We  live  in  an  eventful  period  ;  and,  among 


378  SPEECHES. 

other  things,  we  have  had,  recently,  some  impressive  lessons 
on  the  danger  of  precedents.  To  them  immediately  we  owe 
the  act  which  has  caused  the  present  calamitous  and  danger- 
ous condition  of  the  country ;  which  has  been  defended 
almost  solely  on  the  ground  of  precedents — precedents  almost 
unnoticed  at  the  time  ;  but  had  they  not  existed,  or  had 
they  been  reversed  at  the  time  by  Congress,  the  condition  of 
the  country  would,  this  day,  be  far  different  from  what  it  is. 
/  With  this  knowledge  of  the  facts,  we  must  see  that  a  bad 
precedent  is  as  dangerous  as  a  bad  measure  itself ;  and  in 
some  respects  more  so,  since  it  may  give  rise  to  acts  far  worse 
than  itself,  as  in  the  case  to  which  I  have  alluded.  In  this 
view  of  the  subject,  to  refuse  to  vote  for  the  repeal  of  the 
act,  and  thereby  constitute  a  precedent  to  confer  similar,  or 
more  dangerous  powers  hereafter,  would  be  as  dangerous  as 
to  vote  for  an  act  to  vest  permanently  in  the  President  the 
power  in  question. 

But  roass  over  this  and  other  objections  to  the  details  not 
much  less  formidalrie.  I  take  a  higher  stand  against  the 
act  :  TToBject  to  the  principle  in  which  it  originated, — put- 
ting the  details  aside, — on  the  ground,  as  I  have  stated,  that 
they  are  subversive  of  our  political  institutions,  and  fatal  in 
their  tendency  to  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  the  country. 
Fortunately,  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture  or  inference  as  to 
what  these  principles  are.  /It  was  openly  proclaimed,  both 
here  and  elsewhere,  in  the  debates  of  this  body  and  the  pro- 
clamation and  message  of  the  President,  in  which  the  act 
originated,  that  the  very  basis  on  which  it  rests — the  assump- 
tion on  which  only  it  could  be  supported — was,  that  this 
Government  had  the  final  and  conclusive  right,  in  the  last 
resort,  to  judge  of  the  extent  of  its  powers ;  and  that,  to 
execute  its  decision,  it  had  the  right  to  use  all  the  means  of 
the  country,  civil,  military,  and  fiscal,  not  only  against  in- 
dividuals, but  against  the  States  themselves,  and  all  acting 


SPEECHES.  379 

under  their  authority,  whether  in  a  legislative,  executive,  or 
judicial  capacity./ 

If  further  evidence  be  required,  as  to  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  act,  it  will  be  found  in  the  history  of  the 
events  in  which  it  took  its  origin.  It  originated,  as  we  all 
know,  in  a  controversy  between  this  Government  and  the 
State  of  South  Carolina,  in  reference  to  a  power  which  in- 
volved the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  a  protective 
tariff.  I  do  not  intend  to  give  the  history  of  this  controver- 
sy ;  it  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  say,  that  the  State,  in 
maintenance  of  what  she  believed  to  be  her  unquestionable 
rights,  assumed  the  highest  ground :  she  placed  herself  on 
her  sovereign  authority  as  a  constituent  member  of  this  con- 
federacy, and  made  her  opposition  to  the  encroachment  on 
these  rights  through  a  convention  of  the  people,  the  only  or- 
gan by  which,  according  to  our  conception,  the  sovereign  will 
of  a  State  can  be  immediately  and  directly  pronounced.  This 
Government,  on  its  part,  in  resistance  to  the  action  of  the 
State,  assumed  the  right  to  trample  upon  the  authority  of 
the  convention,  and  to  look  beyond  the  State  to  the  individ- 
uals who  compose  it ;  not  as  forming  a  political  community, 
but  as  a  mere  mass  of  isolated  individuals,  without  political 
character  or  authority ;  and  thus  asserted  in  the  strongest 
manner,  not  only  the  right  of  judging  of  its  own  powers,  but 
that  of  overlooking,  in  a  contest  for  power,  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  State  itself,  and  of  recognizing,  in  the  assertion 
of  what  it  might  claim  to  be  its  power,  no  other  authority 
whatever  in  the  system  but  its  own. 

Such  being  the  principle  in  which  this  bill  originated,  we 
are  brought  to  the  consideration  of  a  question  of  the  deepest 
import.  As  an  act,  which  assumes  such  powers  for  this  Gov- 
ernment, consistent  with  the  nature  and  character  of  our  po- 
litical institutions ¥ 

It  is  not  my  intention,  in  the  discussion  of  this  question, 
to  renew  the  debate  of  the  last  session.  But,  in  declining  to 


380  SPEECHES. 

renew  that  discussion,  I  wish  to  be  distinctly  understood  that 
I  do  so  exclusively  on  the  ground  that  I  do  not  feel  myself 
justified  in  repeating  arguments  so  recently  advanced  ;  and 
not  on  the  ground  that  there  is  the  least  abatement  of  confi- 
dence in  the  positions  then  assumed,  or  in  the  decisive  bear- 
ing which  they  ought  to  have  against  the  act.  So  far  other- 
wise, time  and  reflection  have  but  served  to  confirm  me 
in  the  impression  which  I  then  entertained ;  and,  without 
repeating  the  arguments,  I  now  avail  myself,  in  this  discus- 
sion, of  the  positions  then  established,  and  stand  prepared  to 
vindicate  them  against  whatever  assaults  may  be  made  upon 
them,  come  from  what  quarter  they  may.  Without,  then, 
reopening  the  discussion  of  the  last  session  on  the  elementa- 
ry principles  of  our  Government,  which  were  then  brought 
into  controversy/I  shall  now  proceed  to  take  the  plainest  and 
most  common-sense  view  of  our  political  institutions,  regard- 
ing them  merely  in  a  matter-of-fact  way,  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain the  parts  of  which  they  ar9  composed,  and  the  relations 
which  they  bear  to  each  other/ 

Thus  regarding  our  institutions,  we  are  struck,  on  the 
first  view,  with  the  number  and  complexity  of  the  parts — 
with  the  division,  classification,  and  organization  which  per- 
vade every  part  of  the  system.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  system  of 
governments  ;  and  these,  in  turn,  are  a  system  of  depart- 
ments— a  system  in  which  government  bears  the  same  rela- 
tion to  government,  in  reference  to  the  whole,  as  departments 
do  to  departments,  in  reference  to  each  particular  govern- 
ment. As  each  government  is  made  up  of  the  legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial  departments  organized  into  one,  so 
the  system  is  made  up  of  this  Government,  and  the  State 
governments,  in  like  manner,  organized  into  one  system.  So, 
too,  as  the  powers  which  constitute  the  respective  govern- 
ments are  divided  and  organized  into  departments,  in  like 
manner  in  the  formation  of  the  governments,  their  powers 
are  classed  into  two  distinct  divisions :  the  one  containing 


SPEECHES.  381 

powers  local  and  peculiar  in  their  character,  which  the  inter- 
ests of  the  States  require  to  be  exercised  by  each  State 
through  a  separate  government  ;  the  other  containing  those 
which  are  more  general  and  comprehensive,  and  which  can 
be  best  exercised  in  some  uniform  mode  through  a  common 
Government.  The  former  of  these  divisions  constitutes  what, 
in  our  system,  are  known  as  the  reserved  powers,  and  are  ex- 
ercised by. each  State  through  its  own  separate  Government. 
The  latter  are  known  as  the  delegated  powers,  and  are  exer- 
cised through  this,  the  common  Government  of  the  several 
States.  The  division  of  power  into  two  parts,  with  distinct 
and  independent  governments,  regularly  organized  into  de- 
partments, legislative,  executive,  and  judicial,  to  carry  their 
respective  parts  into  effect,  constitutes  the  great,  striking 
and  peculiar  character  of  our  system — is  without  exam- 
ple in  ancient  or  modern  times — and  may  be  regarded  as  the 
fundamental  distribution  of  power  under  the  system,  and  as 
constituting  its  great  conservative  principle. 

If  we  extend  our  eyes  beyond,  we  shall  find  another  strik- 
ing division  between  the  power  of  the  people  and  that  of  the 
Government — between  that  inherent,  primitive,  creative  pow- 
er which  resides  exclusively  in  the  people,  and  from  which  all 
authority  is  derived,  and  the  delegated  power  or  trust  con- 
ferred upon  the  governments  to  effect  the  object  of  their  cre- 
ation. If  we  look  still  beyond,  we  shall  find  another  and 
most  important  division.  The  people,  instead  of  being  uni- 
ted in  one  general  community,  are  divided  into  twenty-four 
States,  each  forming  a  distinct  sovereign  community,  and  in 
which,  separately,  the  whole  power  of  the  system  ultimately 
resides. 

If  we  examine  how  this  ultimate  power  is  called  into 
action,  we  shall  find  that  its  only  organ  is  a  primary  assem- 
blage of  the  people,  known  under  the  name  of  a  Convention, 
through  which  their  sovereign  will  is  announced,  and  by 
which  governments  are  formed  and  organized.  If  we  trace, 


382  SPEECHES. 

historically,  the  exertion  of  this  power  in  the  formation  of 
the  governments  constituting  our  system,  we  shall  find  that, 
originally,  on  the  separation  of  the  thirteen  colonies  from  the 
crown  of  Great  Britain,  each  State  for  itself,  through  its  own 
convention,  formed  separate  constitutions  and  governments, 
and  that  these  governments,  in  turn,  formed  a  league  or  con- 
federacy for  the  purpose  of  exercising  those  powers,  in  the 
regulation  of  which  the  States  had  a  common  interest.  But 
this  confederacy,  proving  incompetent  for  its  object,  was  su- 
perseded by  the  present  constitution,  which  essentially  changed 
the  character  of  the  system.  If  we  compare  the  mode  of  the 
adoption  of  this  constitution  with  that  of  the  adoption  of  the 
original  constitutions  of  the  several  States,  we  shall  find  them 
precisely  the  same.  In  both,  each  State  adopted  the  consti- 
tution through  its  own  convention,  by  its  separate  act,  each 
for  itself,  and  is  only  bound  in  consequence  of  its  own  adop- 
tion, without  reference  to  the  adoption  of  any  other  State. 
The  only  point  in  which  they  can  be  distinguished  is  the  mu- 
tual compact,  in  which  each  State  stipulated  with  the  others 
to  adopt  it  as  a  common  constitution.  Thus  regarded,  this 
constitution  is,  in  fact,  the  constitution  of  each  State.  In 
Virginia,  for  instance,  it  is  the  constitution  of  Virginia  ;  and 
so,  too,  this  Government,  and  the  laws  which  it  enacts,  are, 
within  the  limits  of  the  State,  the  government  and  the  laws 
of  the  State.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  constitution  and  government 
of  the  whole,  because  it  is  the  constitution  and  government 
of  each  part ;  and  not  the  constitution  and  government  of 
the  parts,  because  it  is  of  the  whole.  The  system  commences 
with  the  parts,  and  ends  with  the  whole.  The  parts  are  the 
units,  and  the  whole  the  multiple,  instead  of  the  whole  being 
a  unit  and  the  parts  the  fractions.  Thus  viewed,  each  State 
has  two  distinct  constitutions  and  governments — a  separate 
constitution  and  government,  instituted,  as  I  have  stated,  to 
regulate  the  objects  in  which  each  has  a  peculiar  interest  ; 
and  a  general  one  to  regulate  the  interests  common  to  all, 


SPEECHES.  383 

and  binding,  by  a  common  compact,  the  whole  into  one  com- 
munity, in  which  the  separate  and  independent  existence  of 
each  State  as  a  sovereign  community  is  preserved,  instead  of 
being  fused  into  a  common  mass. 

Such  is  our  system ;  such  are  its  parts,  and  such  their 
relation  to  each  other.  I  have  stated  no  fact  that  can  be 
questioned,  nor  have  I  omitted  any  that  is  essential  which 
I  am  capable  of  perceiving.  In  reviewing  the  whole,  we 
must  be  no  less  struck  with  the  simplicity  of  the  means  by 
which  all  are  blended  into  one,  than  we  are  by  the  number 
and  complexity  of  the  parts.  I  know  of  no  system,  in  either 
respect,  ancient  or  modern,  to  be  compared  with  it ;  and  can 
compare  it  to  nothing  but  that  sublime  and  beautiful  system 
of  which  our  globe  constitutes  a  part,  and  to  which  it  bears, 
in  many  particulars,  so  striking  a  resemblance.  In  this 
system,  this  Government,  as  we  have  seen,  constitutes  a  part 
— a  prominent,  but  a  subordinate  part,  with  defined,  limited, 
and  restricted  powers. 

I  now  repeat  the  question,  Is  the  act  which  assumes  for 
this  Government  the  right  to  interpret,  in  the  last  resort, 
the  extent  of  its  powers,  and  to  enforce  its  interpretation 
against  all  other  authority,  consistent  with  our  institutions  ? 
To  state  the  question  is  to  answer  it.  We  might  with  equal 
propriety  ask  whether  a  government  of  unlimited  power  is 
consistent  with  one  of  enumerated  and  restricted  powers.  I 
say  unlimited  ;  for  I  would  hold  his  understanding  in  low 
estimation  who  can  make,  practically,  any  distinction  between 
a  government  of  unlimited  powers  and  one  which  has  an 
unlimited  right  to  construe  and  enforce  its  powers  as  it 
pleases.  Who  does  not  see  that,  to  divide  power,  and  to  give 
one  of  the  parties  the  exclusive  right  to  determine  what 
share  belongs  to  him,  is  to  annihilate  the  division,  and  to 
vest  the  whole  in  him  who  possesses  the  right  ?  It  would 
be  no  less  absurd  than  for  one  in  private  life  to  divide  his 
property  with  another,  and  vest  in  that  other  the  absolute 


384  SPEECHES. 

and  unconditional  right  to  determine  the  extent  of  his  share ; 
which  would  be,  in  fact,  to  give  him  the  whole.  Nor  could 
I  think  much  more  highly  of  the  understanding  of  him  who 
does  not  perceive  that  this  exclusive  right,  on  the  part  of 
this  Government,  of  determining  the  extent  of  its  powers, 
necessarily  destroys  all  distinction  between  reserved  and 
delegated  powers  ;  and  that  it  thus  strikes  a  fatal  blow  at 
that  fundamental  distribution  of  power  which  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  our  system.  It  also,  by  inevitable  consequence, 
destroys  all  distinction  between  constitutional  and  unconsti- 
tutional acts,  making  the  latter  to  the  full  as  obligatory  as 
the  former  ;  of  which  we  had  a  remarkable  example  when 
the  act  proposed  to  be  repealed  was  before  the  Senate.  It 
is  well  known  that  the  power  in  controversy  between  thia 
Government  and  the  State  of  South  Carolina  had  been  pro- 
nounced to  be  unconstitutional  by  the  legislatures  of  most  of 
the  Southern  States,  and  also  by  many  of  the  members  of 
this  body ;  and  yet  there  were  instances,  however  extraor- 
dinary it  may  appear,  of  members  of  the  body  voting  to  en- 
force an  act  which  they  believed  to  be  unconstitutional,  and 
that,  too,  at  the  hazard  of  civil  war.  As  strange  as  such  a 
course  must  appear,  it  was  the  natural  and  legitimate  conse- 
quence of  the  power  which  the  act  assumed  for  this  Govern- 
ment, and  illustrates,  in  the  strongest  manner  imaginable, 
the  truth  of  what  I  have  advanced. 

But  to  proceed.  This  unlimited  right  of  judging  as  to 
its  powers,  not  only  destroys,  as  I  have  stated,  all  distinction 
between  constitutional  and  unconstitutional  acts,  but  merges 
in  this  Government  the  very  existence  of  the  separate  govern- 
ments of  the  States,  by  reducing  them  from  that  independent 
and  distinct  existence,  as  co-governments,  assigned  to  them 
in  the  system,  to  mere  subordinate  and  dependent  bodies, 
holding  their  power  and  existence  at  the  mercy  of  this  Gov- 
ernment. It  stops  not  here — it  annihilates  the  States  them- 
selves. The  right  which  it  assumes  of  trampling  upon  the 


SPEECHES.  386 

authority  of  a  convention  of  the  people  of  the  States,  the 
only  organ  through  which  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  can 
exert  itself,  and  to  look  beyond  the  States  to  the  individuals 
who  compose  them,  and  to  treat  them  as  entirely  destitute 
of  all  political  character  or  power,  is,  in  fact,  to  annihilate 
the  States,  and  to  transfer  their  sovereignty  and  all  their 
powers  to  this  Government. 

If  we  now  raise  our  eyes,  and  direct  them  towards  that 
once  beautiful  system,  with  all  its  various,  separate,  and  in- 
dependent parts  blended  into  one  harmonious  whole,  we  must 
be  struck  with  the  mighty  change !  All  have  disappeared — 
gone — absorbed — concentrated  and  consolidated  in  this  Gov- 
ernment— which  is  left  alone  in  the  midst  of  the  desolation 
of  the  system,  the  sole  and  unrestricted  representative  of  an 
absolute  and  despotic  majority. 

Will  it  be  tolerated  that  I  should  ask  whether  an  act 
which  has  caused  so  complete  a  revolution — which  has  en- 
tirely subverted  our  political  system,  as  it  emanated  from 
the  hands  of  its  creators,  and  reared  in  its  place  one  in  every 
respect  so  different — must  not,  in  its  consequences,  prove 
fatal  to  the  liberty  and  the  happiness  of  these  States  ?  Can 
it  be  necessary  for  me  to  prove  that  no  other  system  which 
human  ingenuity  can  devise,  or  imagination  conceive,  but 
that  which  this  fatal  act  has  subverted,  can  preserve  the 
liberty  or  secure  the  happiness  of  the  country  ?  Need  I  show 
that  the  most  difficult  problem  which  ever  was  presented  to 
the  mind  of  a  legislator  to  solve,  was  to  devise  a  system  of 
government  for  a  country  of  such  vast  extent,  that  should  at 
once  possess  sufficient  power  to  hold  the  whole  together, 
without,  at  the  same  tune,  proving  fatal  to  liberty  ?  There 
never  existed  an  example  before  of  a  free  community  spread- 
ing over  such  an  extent  of  territory ;  and  the  ablest  and 
profoundest  thinkers,  at  the  time,  believed  it  to  be  utterly 
impracticable  that  there  should  be.  Yet  this  difficult  prob- 
lem was  solved — successfully  solved — by  the  wise  and  saga- 
VOL.  ii. — 25 


386  SPEECHES. 

cious  men  who  framed  our  constitution.  No  ;  it  was  above 
unaided  human  wisdom — above  the  sagacity  of  the  most 
enlightened.  It  was  the  result  of  a  fortunate  combination 
of  circumstances,  co-operating  and  leading  the  way  to  its 
formation  ;  directed  by  that  kind  Providence  which  has  so 
often  and  so  signally  disposed  events  in  our  favor. 

To  solve  this  difficult  problem,  and  to  overcome  the  ap- 
parently insuperable  obstacle  which  it  presents,  required  that 
peculiar  division,  distribution,  and  organization  of  power, 
which,  as  I  have  stated,  so  remarkably  distinguish  our  sys- 
tem, and  which  serve  as  so  many  breakwaters  to  arrest  the 
angry  waves  of  power,  impelled  by  avarice  and  ambition, 
and  which,  driven  furiously  over  a  broad  and  unbroken  ex- 
panse, would  be  resistless.  Of  this  partition  and  breaking  up 
of  power  into  separate  parts,  the  most  remarkable  division 
is  that  between  the  reserved  and  delegated  powers,  which 
forms  the  basis  on  which  this  and  the  separate  governments 
of  the  States  are  organized,  as  the  great  and  primary  depart- 
ments of  the  system.  It  is  this  important  division  which 
mainly  gives  that  expansive  character  to  our  institutions,  by 
means  of  which  they  have  the  capacity  of  being  spread  over 
the  vast  extent  of  our  country,  without  exposing  us  on  the 
one  side  to  the  danger  of  disunion,  or,  on  the  other,  to  the 
loss  of  liberty.  Without  this  happy  device,  the  people  of 
these  States,  after  having  achieved  their  independence,  would 
have  been  compelled  to  resolve  themselves  into  small  and 
hostile  communities,  in  despite  of  a  common  origin,  a  common 
language,  and  the  common  renown  and  glory  acquired  by 
their  united  wisdom  and  valor  in  the  war  of  the  Eevolution, 
or  have  submitted  quietly  to  the  yoke  of  despotic  power  as 
the  only  alternative. 

In  the  place  of  this  admirably  contrived  system,  the  act 
proposed  to  be  repealed  has  erected  one  great  Consolidated 
Government.  Can  it  be  necessary  for  me  to  show  what  must 
be  the  inevitable  consequences  ?  Need  I  prove  that  ah1  con- 


SPEECHES.  387 

solidated  governments — governments  in  which  a  single  power 
predominates  (for  such  is  then*  essence),  are  necessarily 
despotic — whether  that  power  be  wielded  by  the  will  of  one 
man,  or  that  of  an  absolute  and  unchecked  majority? 
Need  I  demonstrate  that  it  is,  on  the  contrary,  of  the  very 
essence  of  liberty  that  the  power  should  be  so  divided,  dis- 
tributed, and  organized,  that  one  interest  may  check  the 
other,  so  as  to  prevent  the  excessive  action  of  the  separate 
interests  of  the  community  against  each  other  ;  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  organized  power  can  only  be  checked  by  organized 
power  ? 

The  truth  of  these  doctrines  was  fully  understood  at  the 
time  of  the  formation  of  this  constitution.  It  was  then 
clearly  foreseen  and  foretold  what  must  be  the  inevitable 
consequences  of  concentrating  all  the  powers  of  the  system 
in  this  Government.  Yes,  we  are  in  the  state  predicted,  fore- 
told, prophesied  from  the  beginning.  All  the  calamities  we 
have  experienced,  and  those  which  are  yet  to  come,  are  the 
result  of  the  consolidating  tendency  of  the  Government ;  and 
unless  that  tendency  be  arrested — unless  we  reverse  our 
steps,  all  that  has  been  foretold  will  certainly  befall  us — 
even  to  the  pouring  out  of  the  last  vial  of  wrath — military 
despotism.  To  this  fruitful  source  of  woes  may  be  traced 
that  remarkable  decay  of  public  virtue  ;  that  rapid  growth 
of  corruption  and  subserviency  ;  that  decline  of  patriotism  ; 
that  increase  of  faction  ^  that  tendency  to  anarchy ;  and, 
finally,  that  visible  approach  of  the  absolute  power  of  one 
man  which  so  lamentably  characterizes  the  times.  Should 
there  be  any  one  seeing  and  acknowledging  all  these  morbid 
and  dangerous  symptoms,  who  should  doubt  whether  the 
disease  is  to  be  traced  to  the  cause  which  I  have  assigned, 
I  would  ask  him,  To  what  other  can  it  be  attributed  ? 
There  is  no  event — no,  not  in  the  political  or  moral  world, 
more  than  in  the  physical — without  an  adequate  cause.  I 
would  ask  him,  Does  he  attribute  it  to  the  people  ?  to  their 


388  SPEECHES. 

want  of  sufficient  intelligence  and  virtue  for  self-govern- 
ment ?  If  the  true  cause  may  be  traced  to  them,  very  mel- 
ancholy would  be  our  situation  ;  gloomy  would  be  the  pros- 
pect before  us.  If  such  be  the  fact,  that  our  people  are, 
indeed,  incapable  of  self-government,  I  know  of  no  people 
upon  earth  with  whom  we  might  not  desire  to  change  con- 
ditions. When  the  day  conies  wherein  this  people  shall  be 
compelled  to  surrender  self-government — a  people  so  spirited 
and  so  long  accustomed  to  liberty,  it  will  be  indeed  a  day  of 
revolution,  of  convulsion  and  blood,  such  as  has  rarely,  if 
ever,  been  witnessed  in  any  age  or  country  ;  and,  until  com- 
pelled by  irresistible  evidence,  so  fearful  a  cause  cannot  be 
admitted. 

Can  it  be  attributed  to  the  nature  of  our  system  of 
government  ?  Shall  we  pronounce  it  radically  defective, 
and  incapable  of  effecting  the  objects  for  which  it  was  cre- 
ated ?  If  that  be,  in  truth,  the  case,  our  situation  would 
be,  in  fact,  not  much  less  calamitous  than  if  attributable  to 
the  people.  To  what  other  system  could  we  resort  ?  To  a 
confederation  ?  That  has  already  been  tried,  and  has  proved 
utterly  inadequate.  To  consolidation  ?  Keason  and  experi- 
ence (as  far  as  we  have  had  experience)  proclaim  it  to  be  the 
worst  possible  form.  But  if  the  cause  be  not  in  the  people 
or  the  system,  to  what  can  it  be  attributed  but  to  some  mis7 
apprehension  of  the  nature  and  character  of  our  institutions, 
and  consequent  misdirection  of  their  powers  or  functions  ? 
And  if  so,  to  what  other  misapprehension  or  misdirection 
but  that  which  directed  our  system  towards  consolidation, 
and  consummated  its  movement,  in  that  direction,  in  the  act 
proposed  to  be  repealed  ?  That  such  is  the  fact — that  tin's 
is  the  true  explanation  of  all  the  symptoms  of  decay  and 
corruption  which  I  have  enumerated — is,  in  reality,  our  only 
consolation — furnishes  the  only  hope  that  can  be  ration- 
ally entertained  of  extricating  ourselves  from  our  present 
calamity,  and  of  averting  the  still  greater  that  are  impending 


SPEECHES.  389 

I  know  that  there  are  those  who  take  a  different,  but,  in 
my  opinion,  a  very  superficial  view  of  the  cause  of  our  diffi- 
culties. They  attribute  it  exclusively  to  those  who  are  in 
power,  and  see  in  the  misconduct  of  General  Jackson  the 
cause  of  all  that  has  befallen  us.  That  he  has  done  much 
to  aggravate  the  evil,  I  acknowledge  with  pain.  I  had  my 
full  share  of  responsibility  in  elevating  him  to  power,  and 
there  once  existed  between  us  friendly  relations,  personal 
and  political ;  and  I  would  rejoice  had  he  so  continued  to 
conduct  himself  as  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  country, 
and  his  own  reputation  and  fame.  He  certainly  might  have 
effected  much  good.  He  came  into  office  under  circum- 
stances, and  had  a  weight  of  popularity  which  placed  much 
in  his  power,  for  good  or  for  evil ;  but  either  from  a  want  of 
a  just  comprehension  of  the  duties  attached  to  the  situation 
in  which  he  is  placed,  or  an  indisposition  to  discharge  them, 
or  the  improper  influence  and  control  of  those  who,  unfortu- 
nately for  the  country  and  for  himself,  have  acquired, 
through  flattery  and  subserviency,  an  ascendency  over  him, 
he  has  disappointed  the  hopes  of  his  friends,  and  realized  the 
predictions  of  his  enemies.  But  the  question  recurs,  How 
happened  it  that  he  who  has  proved  himself  so  illy  qualified 
to  fill  the  high  station  that  he  occupies,  was  elected  by  the 
people  ?  If  it  be  attributed  to  a  misapprehension  of  his 
qualifications,  or  to  an  undue  gratitude  for  distinguished 
military  services,  which  at  times  leads  astray  the  most  intel- 
ligent and  virtuous  people  in  the  selection  of  rulers — how 
shall  we  explain  his  re-election,  after  he  had  actually  proved 
himself  so  incompetent ;  after  he  had  violated  every  pledge 
which  he  had  made  previous  to  his  election  ;  after  he  had  dis- 
regarded the  principles  on  which  he  had  permitted  his  friends 
and  partisans  to  place  his  elevation,  and  had  outraged  the 
feelings  of  the  community  by  attempting  to  regulate  the 
t  domestic  intercourse  and  relations  of  society  ?  Shall  we  say 
that  the  feelings  of  gratitude  for  military  services  outweighed 


390  SPEECHES. 

all  this  ?  or  that  the  people,  with  all  this  experience,  were 
incapable  of  forming  a  correct  opinion  of  his  conduct  or 
character,  or  of  understanding  the  tendency  of  the  measures 
of  his  administration  ?  To  assert  this  would  be  neither  more 
nor  less  than  to  assert  that  they  have  neither  the  intelli- 
gence nor  the  virtue  for  self-government ;  as  the  very  crite- 
rion by  which  their  capacity  in  that  respect  is  tested,  is  their 
ability  duly  to  appreciate  the  character  and  conduct  of  public 
rulers,  and  the  true  tendency  of  their  public  measures  ;  and 
to  admit  their  incapacity  in  that  respect  would,  in  fact,  bring 
us  back  to  the  people  as  the  cause. 

To  understand  truly  how  the  distinguished  individual 
now  at  the  head  of  affairs  was  elevated  to  this  exalted  sta- 
tion, in  despite  of  his  acknowledged  defects  in  several  re- 
spects, and  how  he  has  retained  his  power  among  an  intelli- 
gent and  patriotic  people,  notwithstanding  all  the  objections 
to  his  administration  that  have  been  stated,  we  must  elevate 
our  views  from  the  individual,  and  his  qualifications  and  con- 
duct, to  the  working  of  the  system  itself,  by  which  only  we 
can  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  true  cause  of  our  present 
condition  ;  how  we  have  arrived  at  it,  and  by  what  means 
we  can  extricate  ourselves  from  its  dangers  and  difficulties. 
I  do  not  deem  it  necessary,  in  taking  this  view,  to  go  back 
and  trace  the  operation  of  our  Government  from  the  com- 
mencement, or  to  point  out  the  departure  from  its  true  prin- 
ciples from  the  beginning,  with  the  evils  thence  resulting, 
however  interesting  and  instructive  the  investigation  might 
be.  I  might  show  that,  from  the  first — beginning  with  the 
formation  of  our  constitution — there  were  two  parties  in  the 
Convention  ;  one  in  favor  of  a  national,  or,  what  is  the  same 
thing,  a  consolidated  government,  and  the  other  in  favor  of 
the  confederative  principle  ;  how  the  latter,  from  being  in 
the  minority  at  first,  gradually,  and  after  a  long  struggle, 
gained  the  ascendency  ;  and  how  the  fortunate  result  of  that 
ascendency  terminated  in  the  establishment  of  that  beautiful. 


SPEECHES.  391 

complex,  federative  system  of  government  which  I  have  at- 
tempted to  explain. 

I  might  show  that  the  struggle  between  the  two  parties 
did  not  terminateVith  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  ;  that 
after  it  went  into  operation  the  national  party  gained  the  as- 
cendency in  the  councils,  of  the  country ;  and  that  the  result 
of  that  ascendency  was  to  give  an  impulse  to  the  Government 
in  the  direction  to  which  their  principles  led,  and  from  which 
it  never  afterwards  recovered.  I  am  far  from  attributing 
this  to  any  sinister  design.  The  party  were  not  less  distin- 
guished for  patriotism  than  for  ability,  and  no  doubt  honestly 
intended  to  give  the  system  a  fair  trial ;  but  they  would  have 
been  more  than  men,  if  their  attachment  to  a  favorite  plan 
had  not  biased  their  feelings  and  judgment.  I,  said  Mr.  C., 
avail  myself  of  the  occasion  to  avow  my  high  respect  for  both 
of  the  great  parties  which  divided  the  country  in  its  early 
history.  They  were  both  eminently  honest  and  patriotic, 
and  the  preference  which  each  gave  to  its  respective  views 
resulted  from  a  zealous  attachment  to  the  public  interest. 
At  that  early  period,  before  there  was  any  experience  as  to 
the  operation  of  the  system,  it  is  not  surprising  that  one 
should  believe  that  the  danger  was  a  tendency  to  anarchy, 
while  the  other  believed  it  to  be  towards  despotism ;  and  that 
these  different  theoretical  views  should  honestly  have  had  a 
decided  influence  on  their  public  conduct. 

I  pass  over  the  intermediate  events  :  the  reaction  against 
the  national,  or,  as  it  was  then  called,  federal  party — the 
elevation  of  Mr.  Jefferson  in  consequence  of  that  reaction  in 
1801 — and  the  gradual  departure  (from  the  influence  of 
power)  of  the  republican  party  from  the  principles  which 
brought  them  into  office.  I  come  down  at  once  to  the  year 
eighteen  hundred  and  twenty-four,  when  a  protective  tariff 
was  for  the  first  time  adopted ;  when  the  power  to  impose 
duties,  granted  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  was  con- 
verted into  an  instrument  of  regulating,  controlling,  and  or- 


392  SPEECHES. 

ganmng  the  entire  capital  and  industry  of  the  country,  aiid 
placing  them  under  the  influence  of  this  Government ;  and 
when  the  principles  of  consolidation  gained  an  entire  ascend- 
ency in  both  Houses  of  Congress.  Its  first  fruit  was  to  give 
a  sectional  action  to  the  Government,  and,  of  course,  a  sec- 
tional character  to  political  parties — arraying  the  non-export- 
ing States  against  the  exporting,  and  the  Northern  against 
the  Southern  section. 

It  is  my  wish  to  speak  of  the  events  to  which  I  feel  my- 
self compelled  to  refer,  in  illustration  of  the  practical  ope- 
ration of  that  consolidating  tendency  of  the  Government, 
which  was  consummated  by  the  act  proposed  to  be  repealed, 
and  which  I  believe  to  be  the  cause  of  all  our  evils,  with  the 
greatest  possible  moderation.  I  know  how  delicate  a  task  it 
is  to  speak  of  recent  political  events,  and  of  the  actors  con- 
cerned in  them ;  and  I  would,  on  this  occasion,  gladly  avoid 
so  painful  a  duty,  if.  I  did  not  believe  that  truth  and  the  pub- 
lic interest  require  it.  Without  a  full  understanding  of  the 
events  of  this  period,  from  1824  down  to  the  present  time, 
it  is  impossible  that  we  can  have  a  just  knowledge  of  the 
cause  of  our  present  condition,  or  a  clear  perception  of  the 
means  of  remedying  it.  To  avoid  all  personal  feeling,  I 
shall  endeavor  to  recede,  in  imagination,  a  century  from  the 
present  time,  and  from  that  distant  position  regard  the  events 
to  which  I  allude,  in  that  spirit  of  philosophical  inquiry  by 
which  an  earnest  seeker  after  truth,  at  so  remote  a  day,  may 
be  supposed  to  be  actuated.  I  feel  I  may  be  justified  in 
speaking  with  the  less  reserve  of  these  events,  as  the  great 
question  which,  during  the  greater  part  of  the  period,  so 
deeply  agitated  the  country  (the  protective  tariff),  may  now 
be  considered  as  terminated  in  the  adjustment  of  the  last 
winter,  never  to  be  reagitated,  as  I  trust ;  and,  of  course, 
may  be  spoken  of  with  the  freedom  of  a  past  event. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  narrative.  The  Presidential 
contest,  which  was  terminated  the  next  year,  placed,  the  ex- 


SPEECHES.  393 

ecutive  department  under  the  control  of  the  same  interest  that 
controlled  the  legislative — so  that  all  the  departments  of  this 
Government  were  united  in  favor  of  that  great  interest.  The 
successful  termination  of  the  election  in  favor  of  the  individ- 
ual then  elevated  to  the  chief  magistracy,  and  for  whom  I 
then  and  now  entertain  kind  feelings,  may  be  attributed  in 
part,  no  doubt,  to  the  predominance  of  the  tariff  interest ; 
and  may  be  considered  as  the  first  instance  of  the  predomi- 
nance of  that  interest  in  a  Presidential  contest. 

Let  us  pause  at  this  point  (it  is  an  important  one),  in 
order  to  survey  the  state  of  public  affairs  at  that  juncture. 
In  casting  our  eyes  over  the  scene,  we  find  the  country  divided 
into  two  great  hostile  and  sectional  parties — placed  in  con- 
flict on  a  question,  believed  to  be  on  both  sides  of  vital  im- 
portance, in  reference  to  their  respective  interests  ;  and,  on 
the  side  of  the  weaker  party,  believed,  in  addition,  to  involve 
a  constitutional  question  of  the  greatest  magnitude,  and 
having  a  direct  and  important  bearing  on  the  duration  of  the 
liberty  and  constitution  of  the  country.  In  this  conflict,  we 
find  both  Houses  of  Congress,  with  the  chief  magistrate,  and, 
of  course,  the  Government  itself,  on  the  side  of  the  dominant 
interest,  and  identified  with  it  in  principles  and  feelings.  In 
this  state  of  things,  a  great  and  solemn  question,  What 
ought  to  be  done  ?  was  forced  on  the  decision  of  the  minor- 
ity. Shall  we  acquiesce,  or  shall  we  oppose  ?  and  if  oppose, 
how  ?  To  acquiesce  quietly  would  be  to  subject  the  property 
and  industry  of  an  entire  section  of  the  country  to  an  un- 
limited and  indefinite  exaction ;  as  it  was  openly  avowed 
that  the  protective  system  could  only  be  perfected  by  being 
carried  to  the  point  of  prohibition  on  all  articles  of  which  a 
sufficient  supply  could  be  made  or  manufactured  in  the 
Country.  To  submit  under  such  circumstances  would  have 
been,  according  to  our  view  of  the  subject,  a  gross  dereliction 
both  of  interest  and  duty.  It  was  impossible.  But  how 
could  the  majority  be  successfully  opposed,  possessed,  as  they 


394  SPEECHES. 

were,  of  every  department  of  the  Government  ?  How,  in  this 
state  of  things,  could  the  minority  effect  a  change  in  their 
favor  through  the  ordinary  operations  of  the  Government  ? 
They  could  effect  no  favorable  change  in  this  or  the  other 
House — the  majority  in  both  but  too  faithfully  representing 
what  their  constituents  believed  to  be  the  interests  of  their 
section,  to  whom  only,  and  not  to  us,  they  were  responsible. 
The  only  branch  of  the  Government,  then,  on  which  the  mi- 
nority could  act,  and  through  which  they  could  hope  to  effect 
a  favorable  change,  was  the  Executive.  The  President  is 
elected  by  a  majority  of  the  whole  electoral  votes ;  and,  of 
course,  the  minority  have  a  weight  in  his  election,  in  propor- 
tion to  their  number  and  the  unity  of  their  voice.  Here  was 
all  our  hope,  and  to  this  point  all  our  efforts  to  effect  a  change 
were  necessarily  directed.  But  even  here  our  power  of  act- 
ing with  effect  was  limited  to  a  narrow  circle.  It  would 
have  been  hopeless  to  present  a  candidate  openly  and  fully 
identified  with  our  own  interest.  Defeat  would  have  been 
the  certain  result,  had  his  acknowledged  qualifications  for 
intelligence,  experience,  and  patriotism  been  ever  so  great. 
We  were  thus  forced,  by  inevitable  consequence, — neither  to 
be  avoided  nor  resisted, — to  abandon  the  contest,  or  to  select 
a  candidate  who,  at  best,  was  but  a  choice  of  evils  ;  one 
whose  opinions  were  intermediate  or  doubtful  on  the  subject 
which  divided  the  two  sections.  However  great  the  hazard, 
or  the  objections  to  such  a  selection  for  such  an  office,  it 
must  be  charged,  not  to  us,  but  to  that  action  of  the  system 
which  compelled  us  to  make  the  choice — compelling  us  by 
that  consolidating  tendency  which  had  drawn  under  the  con- 
trol of  this  Government  the  local  and  reserved  powers  be- 
longing to  the  States  separately ;  the  exercise  of  which  had 
necessarily  given  the  direction  to  its  action,  that  created  and 
placed  in  conflict  the  two  great  sectional,  political  parties. 
But  it  was  not  sufficient  that  the  opinion  of  our  candi- 
date should  not  be  fully  in  coincidence  with  our  own.  That 


SPEECHES.  395 

alone  could  not  be  sufficient  to  insure  his  success.  It  was  ne- 
cessary that  he  should  have  great  personal  popularity,  dis- 
tinct from  political ;  to  be,  in  a  word,  a  successful  military 
chieftain,  which  gives  a  popularity  the  most  extensive,  and 
the  least  affected  by  political  considerations ;  and  this  was 
another  fruit — a  necessary  fruit  of  consolidation.  To  these 
recommendations  others  must  be  added,  in  order  to  conciliate 
the  feelings  of  the  minority — that  he  should  be  identified, 
for  instance,  with  them  in  interest — possess  the  same  proper- 
ty, and  pursue  the  same  system  of  industry.  These  qualifica- 
tions, all  of  which  were  made  indispensable  by  the  juncture, 
pointed  clearly  to  one  man,  and  but  one — General  Jackson. 
There  was,  however,  another  circumstance  which  gave  him 
great  prominence  and  strength,  and  which  greatly  contributed 
to  recommend  him  as  the  opposing  candidate.  He  had  been 
defeated  in  the  Presidential  contest  before  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives (though  returned  with  the  highest  vote)  under 
circumstances  which  were  supposed  to  involve  a  disregard  of 
the  public  voice.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  enter  into  an 
inquiry  as  to  the  principles  which  controlled  the  election,  or 
as  to  the  view  of  the  actors  in  that  scene.  Many  considera- 
tions doubtless  governed,  and  among  others,  the  feelings  of 
prominent  individuals  in  reference  to  the  candidates,  and 
their  opinion  of  their  respective  qualifications,  besides  the 
one  to  which  I  have  alluded — that  of  giving  to  the  dominant 
interest  that  control  over  the  executive  which  they  had  over 
the  legislative  department. 

These  combined  motives,  as  I  have  stated,  pointed  dis- 
tinctly to  General  Jackson.  He  was  selected  as  the  candi- 
date of  the  minority — and  the  canvass  entered  into  with  all 
that  zeal  which  belonged  to  the  magnitude  of  the  stake, 
united  with  the  consciousness  of  honest  and  patriotic  pur- 
pose. The  leading  objects  were  to  effect  a  great  political  re- 
form, and  to  arrest,  if  possible,  what  we  believed  to  be  a 
dangerous,  and  felt  to  be  an  oppressive  action  of  the  Govern- 


396  SPEECHES. 

ment.  It  is  true  that  the  qualifications  of  the  individual, 
thus  necessarily  selected,  were  believed  to  be,  in  many  im- 
portant particulars,  defective  ;  that  he  lacked  experience,  ex- 
tensive political  information,  and  command  of  temper  ;  but 
it  was  believed  that  his  firmness  of  purpose,  and  his  natural 
sagacity,  by  calling  to  his  aid  the  experience,  the  talents,  the 
patriotism  of  those  who  supported  his  claims,  would  com- 
pensate for  these  defects. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  enter  into  a  history  of  this 
interesting  and  animated  canvass  ;  but  there  is  one  circum- 
stance attending  it  so  striking,  so  full  of  instruction,  and  so 
illustrative  of  the  point  under  consideration,  that  I  cannot 
pass  it  in  silence.  The  canvass  soon  ran  into  the  great  and 
absorbing  question  of  the  day,  as  all  ordinary  diseases  run 
into  the  prevailing  one.  Those  in  power  sought  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  popularity  of  the  system  with  which  they 
were  identified.  I  speak  it  not  in  censure.  It  was  natural, 
perhaps  unavoidable,  as  connected  with  the  morbid  action  of 
the  Government.  That  portion  of  our  allies  identified  with 
the  same  interest,  were  in  like  manner,  and  from  the  same 
motive  and  cause,  forced  into  a  rivalry  of  zeal  for  the  same 
interest.  The  result  of  these  causes  combined  with  a  mo- 
nopolizing spirit  of  the  protective  system,  was  the  tariff  of 
eighteen  hundred  and  twenty-eight :  that  disastrous  measure, 
which  has  brought  so  many  calamities  upon  us,  and  put  in 
peril  the  union  and  liberty  of  the  country.  It  poured  mil- 
lions into  the  treasury  beyond  even  the  most  extravagant 
wants  of  the  Government ;  which,  on  the  payment  of  the 
public  debt,  caused  that  hazardous  juncture,  resulting  from 
a  large  undisposable  surplus  revenue,  which  has  spread  such 
deep  corruption  in  every  direction. 

This  disastrous  event  opened  our  eyes  (I  mean  myself  and 
those  immediately  connected  with  me)  as  to  the  full  extent 
of  the  danger  and  oppression  of  the  protective  system,  and 
the  hazard  of  failing*  to  effect  the  reform  intended  through 


SPEECHES.  397 

the  election  of  General  Jackson.  With  these  disclosures,  it 
became  necessary  to  seek  some  other  ultimate,  but  more  cer- 
tain measure  of  protection.  We  turned  to  the  constitution 
to  find  this  remedy.  We  directed  a  more  diligent  and  care- 
ful scrutiny  into  its  provisions,  in  order  to  ascertain  fully  the 
nature  and  character  of  our  political  system.  We  found  a 
certain  and  effectual  remedy  in  that  great  fundamental  di- 
vision of  the  powers  of  the  system  between  this  Government 
and  its  independent  co-ordinates, — the  separate  governments 
of  the  States  ; — to  be  called  into  action  to  arrest  the  uncon- 
stitutional acts  of  this  Government,  by  the  interposition 
of  the  States — the  paramount  source  from  which  both 
governments  derive  their  power.  But  in  relying  on  this 
as  our  ultimate  remedy,  we  did  not  abate  our  zeal  in 
the  Presidential  canvass  ;  we  still  hoped  that  General  Jack- 
son, if  elected,  would  effect  the  necessary  reform,  and  there- 
by supersede  the  necessity  for  calling  into  action  the  sover- 
eign authority  of  the  State,  which  we  were  anxious  to  avoid. 
With  these  views,  the  two  were  pushed  with  equal  zeal  at  the 
same  time  ;  which  double  operation  commenced  in  the  fall 
of  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty-eight,  but  a  few  months  af- 
ter the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  that  year ;  and  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  at  the  same  period, 
a  paper,  known  as  the  South  Carolina  Exposition,  was  re- 
ported to  that  body,  containing  a  full  development,  as  well  on 
the  constitutional  point,  as  on  the  operation  of  the  protective 
system,  preparatory  to  a  state  of  things  which  might  eventual- 
ly render  the  action  of  the  State  necessary  in  order  to  protect 
her  rights  and  interests,  and  to  stay  a  course  of  policy  which 
we  believed  would,  if  not  arrested,  prove  destructive  of  lib- 
erty and  the  constitution.  This  movement  on  the  part  of 
the  State,  places  beyond  all  controversy  the  true  character  of 
the  motives  which  governed  us  in  the  Presidential  canvass, 
We  were  not  the  mere  partisans  of  the  candidate  we  support- 
ed. WTe  aimed  at  a  far  more  exalted  object  than  his  elec- 


398  SPEECHES. 

tion — the  defence  of  the  rights  of  the  State,  and  the  security 
of  liberty  and  of  the  constitution.  To  this  we  held  his 
election  entirely  subordinate.  This  we  pursued,  unwarped 
by  selfish  or  ambitious  views. 

The  contest  terminated  in  the  elevation  of  him  who  now 
presides ;  but  it  soon  became  apparent  that  our  apprehen- 
sions that  we  might  be  disappointed  in  the  expected  reform, 
were  not  without  foundation.  That  occurred,  which  we 
ought,  perhaps,  to  have  expected,  and  which,  under  similar 
circumstances,  has  rarely  failed  to  follow.  He  who  was  ele- 
vated to  power  proved  to  be  more  solicitous  to  retain  what 
he  had  acquired  than  to  fulfil  the  expectation  of  those  who 
had  honestly  contributed  to  his  elevation,  with  a  view  to 
political  reform.  The  tale  may  be  readily  told :  not  a  promise 
fulfilled — not  a  measure  adopted  to  correct  the  abuses  of  the 
system — not  a  step  taken  to  arrest  the  progress  of  consoli- 
dation, and  to  restore  the  confederative  principles  of  our 
Government — not  a  look  cast  to  the  near  approach  of  the 
payment  of  the  public  debt — nor  an  effort  made  to  reduce 
gradually  the  duties,  in  order  to  prevent  a  surplus  revenue, 
and  to  save  the  manufactures  which  had  grown  up  under  the 
protective  system,  from  the  hazard  of  a  shock  caused  by  a 
sudden  reduction  of  the  duties.  All  were  forgotten ;  and, 
instead  of  attempting  to  control  events,  the  Executive  was 
only  solicitous  to  occupy  a  position  the  most  propitious  to 
retain  and  increase  his  power.  It  required  but  little  pene- 
tration to  see  that  the  position  sought  was  a  middle  one 
between  the  contending  parties ; — to  be  identified  with  no 
principle  or  policy,  but  to  rely  on  the  personal  popularity  of 
the  incumbent,  and  the  power  and  patronage  of  the  Govern- 
ment, as  the  means  of  support.  Hence  a  third  party  was 
formed,  a  personal  and  Government  party,  made  up  of  those 
who  were  attached  to  the  person  and  the  fortunes  of  a  suc- 
cessful political  chief.  In  a  word,  we  had  exhibited  to  our 
view,  for  the  first  time  under  our  system,  that  most  danger- 


SPEECHES.  399 

ous  spectacle,  in  a  country  like  ours,  a  prerogative  party, 
who  take  their  creed  wholly  from  the  mandate  of  their  chief 
The  times  were  eminently  propitious  for  the  formation  of 
such  a  party.  Millions  were  poured  into  the  treasury  by  the 
high  protective  duties  of  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty-eight, 
furnishing  an  overflowing  fund  to  secure  the  services  of  ex- 
pectants and  partisans.  Against  these  superabundant  means 
of  power  there  was  not,  nor  could  there  be,  as  things  were 
situated,  any  effective  resistance — all  being  necessarily  with- 
drawn in  consequence  of  the  fierce  contest  between  the  two" 
sections  which  continued  to  rage  with  increasing  violence, 
and  which  wasted  the  strength  of  the  parties  on  each  other, 
instead  of  opposing  the  rapidly-increasing  power  of  the 
Executive.  This,  and  not  the  personal  or  the  military  pop- 
ularity of  General  Jackson,  is  the  true  explanation  of  the  fact, 
which  has  struck  so  many  with  wonder,  that  no  misconduct 
— that  no  neglect  of  duty  nor  perversions  of  the  power  of 
Government,  however  gross,  have  been  able  to  shake  his 
power  and  popularity  ;  and  that  the  people  have  looked  idly 
on,  apparently  bereaved  of  every  patriotic  sentiment,  or 
joined  to  swell  the  tide  of  power  with  shouts  of  approbation 
at  every  act,  however  outrageous.  I  do  not  doubt  that  his 
personal  popularity,  arising  from  his  military  achievements, 
contributed  much  to  his  elevation  (in  fact,  it  was  one  of  the 
elements,  as  stated,  which  governed  his  selection  as  a  candi- 
date), and  to  sustain  him  while  in  power;  but  I  feel  a 
perfect  conviction  that,  whatever  advantage  he  has  gained 
from  this  source,  has  been  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the 
mismanagement  and  blunders  of  his  administration  ;  and 
that,  under  the  circumstances,  it  would  be  equally  diffi- 
cult to  expel  from  power  any  individual  of  sagacity  and 
firmness,  in  possession  of  that  department.  Let  us  learn, 
from  the  instructive  history  of  this  interesting  period,  that 
despotic  power,  under  our  system,  commences  with  the  usur- 
pation of  this  Government  on  the  reserved  powers  of  the 


400  SPEECHES. 

States,  and  terminates  in  the  concentration  of  all  the  powers 
of  this  Government  in  the  person  of  a  chief  magistrate  ;  and 
that,  unless  the  first  be  resisted,  the  latter  follows  by  a  law  as 
necessary,  resistless,  and  inevitable,  as  that  which  governs  the 
movements  of  the  solar  system. 

As  soon  as  it  was  perceived  that  he  whom  we  had  ele- 
vated to  office  was,  as  I  have  stated,  more  intent  to  retain 
and  augment  his  power  than  to  meet  the  just  expectations  on 
which  he  was  supported,  we  totally  despaired  of  relief  and 
'reform  through  the  ordinary  action  of  this  Government,  and 
separated,  from  that  moment,  from  the  administration  ;  with- 
drew from  the  political  contest  here,  and  concentrated  all  our 
energies  on  that  ultimate  remedy  which  we  had  taken  the 
precaution  to  prepare,  in  order  to  be  called  into  action  in  the 
event  of  things  taking  the  direction  they  have. 

An  active  discussion  followed  in  the  State,  in  which  the 
principles  and  character  of  our  political  institutions  were  fully 
investigated,  and  a  clear  perception  of  the  danger  to  which 
the  country  was  exposed  was  impressed  upon  the  public 
mind.  Still,  the  determination  was  fixed  not  to  act  while 
there  was  a  ray  of  hope  .of  redress  from  the  Government ;  and 
we  accordingly  waited  the  approach  of  the  final  payment  of 
the  public  debt,  when  all  pretexts  for  keeping  up  the  extrav- 
agant duties  of  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty-eight  would 
cease.  The  near  approach  of  that  event  caused  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-two,  which  was 
proclaimed  on  both  sides,  by  the  opposition  and  the  admin- 
istration, to  be  a  final  and  permanent  adjustment  of  the 
protective  system.  We  felt  every  disposition  to  acquiesce  in 
any  reasonable  adjustment,  but  it  was  impossible,  consistently 
with  our  views  of  the  nature  of  our  rights,  and  the  conse- 
quences involved  in  the  contest,  to  submit  to  the  act.  The 
protective  principle  was  fully  maintained  ;  the  reduction  was 
small,  and  the  distribution  of  the  burden  between  the  two 
sections  more  unequal  than  under  the  act  of  eighteen  hun- 


SPEECHES.  401 

dred  and  twenty-eight.  Every  effort  was  made  to  magnify 
the  amount  of  reduction.  With  that  view  false  and  decep- 
tive calculations  were  made,  and  that,  too,  in  official  docu- 
ments, in  order  to  make  the  impression  that  the  revenue 
would  be  reduced  to  the  legitimate  wants  of  the  Government, 
or,  at  least,  nearly  so.  We  were  not  to  be  imposed  upon  by 
such  calculations.  We  clearly  perceived  that  the  income 
would  be  at  least  from  twenty-two  to  twenty-five  millions  of 
dollars,  nearly  double  what  the  Government  ought  to  expend; 
and  we  as  clearly  saw  how  much  so  large  a  permanent  sur- 
plus must  contribute  to  corrupt  the  country  and  undermine 
our  political  institutions.  Seeing  this,  with  a  prospect  of  an 
indefinite  continuance  of  the  heavy  and  useless  tax  levied  in 
the  shape  of  duties,  the  State  interposed,  and  by  that  inter- 
position prepared  to  arrest  within  its  limits  the  operation  of 
the  protective  system — interposed,  not  to  dissolve  the  Union, 
as  was  calumniously  charged,  but  to  compel  an  adjustment 
here  or  through  a  convention  of  the  States,  or,  if  an  adjust- 
ment could  not  be  had  through  either,  to  compel  the  Gov- 
ernment to  abandon  the  protective  system. 

The  moment  was  portentous.  Our  political  system  rocked 
to  the  centre.  Whatever  diseases  existed  within,  engendered 
by  long  corruption  and  abuse,  were  struck  to  the  surface. 
The  Proclamation  and  the  message  of  the  President  appeared, 
containing  doctrines  never  before  officially  avowed — going  far 
beyond  the  extreme  tenets  of  the  federal  party,  and  in  direct 
conflict  with  all  that  had  ever  been  entertained  by  the  re- 
publican party  ;  and  yet,  such  was  the  corruption,  such  the 
subserviency  to  power,  that  both  parties,  forgetting  the  past, 
abandoning  every  political  principle,  however  sacred  or  long 
entertained,  rushed  to  the  embrace  of  the  new  creed — sud- 
denly, instantly,  without  the  slightest  hesitation.  Never  did 
a  free  people  exhibit  so  degraded  a  spectacle — give  such 
evidence  of  the  loose  attachment  to  principle,  or  greater  sub- 
serviency to  power.  At  this  moment  the  current  of  events 


402  SPEECHES. 

tended  towards  despotic  authority  in  the  person  of  the  chief 
magistrate  on  the  one  side,  &nd  to  disunion  on  the  other ;  on  one 
side  to  clothe  the  President  with  power  more  than  dictatorial, 
in  order  to  maintain  the  ascendency  of  the  protective  system  ; 
and,  on  the  other,  to  resist  the  loss  of  liberty  at  every  hazard. 
Fortunately  for  the  country,  there  was,  at  the  time,  in  the 
councils  of  the  nation  an  individual  who  had  the  highest 
weight  of  authority  with  the  supporters  of  that  system — one 
who  had  done  more  to  advance  it  than  any  other — who  was 
the  most  intimately  identified  with  it,  and  to  whom,  of  course, 
the  task  of  adjustment  most  appropriately  belonged.  For- 
tunately, also,  he  had  the  disposition  and  the  fortitude  to 
undertake  it.  An  adjustment  followed ;  the  crisis  of  the 
disease  passed  ;  the  body  politic  from  that  moment  became 
convalescent ;  the  tendency  to  despotic  power  in  the  Executive 
was  weakened — doubly  weakened — by  enabling  those  who  had 
been  so  long  wasting  their  strength  in  mutual  conflict,  to 
unite  in  resisting  the  usurpations  of  that  department,  as  we 
this  day  behold  on  the  question  of  the  deposits;  and  by 
diminishing  the  revenue — the  food  on  which  it  had  grown  to 
such  enormous  dimensions.  In  a  short  time  the  decreasing 
scale  of  duties  will  cause  the  effect  of  this  diminution  to  be 
felt — a  period  that  will  be  hastened  by  that  profuse  and 
profligate  disbursement  which  has  nearly  doubled  the  public 
expenditure,  and  which  is  so  rapidly  absorbing  the  surplus 
revenue. 

I  have  said  that  the  crisis  is  passed  ;  yet  there  remain 
some  troublesome  and  even  dangerous  symptoms,  growing 
out  of  the  former  cause  of  the  disease,  which,  however,  may 
be  overcome  by  skill  and  decision  ;  unless,  indeed,  they 
should  run  into  the  lurking  cause  of  another,  and  most  dan- 
gerous disease,  with  which  it  is  intimately  connected,  and 
excite  it  into  action ;  I  mean  the  rotten  state  of  the  cur- 
rency. There  are  indications,  of  a  very  dangerous  and  alarm- 
ing character,  of  this  tendency,  at  the  point  where  the  cur- 


SPEECHES.  403 

rency  is  the  most  disordered.  I  refer  to  the  measure  now 
pending  before  the  Legislature  of  New- York,  to  pledge  the 
capital  and  the  industry  of  the  State,  to  the  amount  of  six 
millions  of  dollars,  in  support  of  the  banks — a  measure  of  a 
kind  that  a  British  minister  (Lord  Althorp),  with  all  the 
power  of  parliament  to  support  him,  refused  to  adopt,  be- 
cause of  its  dangerous  and  corrupting  tendency. 

Let  us  now  turn,  and  inquire,  What  would  have  been 
the  course  of  events  if  the  State  had  not  interposed,  and 
things  had  been  permitted  to  take  their  natural  course  ? 
The  act  of  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-two  was  proclaimed, 
— as  I  have  stated, — on  both  sides,  to  be  a  final  settlement  of 
the  tariff  question,  and  of  course,  was  intended  to  be  a  per- 
manent law  of  the  land.  The  revenue,  as  I  have  already 
said,  under  that  act,  and  the  sales  of  public  lands,  would, 
in  all  probability,  be  not  less  than  twenty-five  millions  of  dol- 
lars per  annum  :  a  sum  exceeding  the  legitimate  wants  of 
the  Government,  estimated  on  a  liberal  scale,  by  ten  or 
eleven  millions  of  dollars.  Now,  I  ask,  What  would  have 
been  our  situation,  with  so  large  an  annual  surplus,  and  a 
fierce  sectional  conflict  raging  between  the  Northern  and 
Southern  portions  of  the  Union  ?  If  we  find  it  so  difficult 
to  resist  the  usurpation  of  the  executive  department  with  a 
temporary  surplus  revenue,  to  continue  at  most  but  for  one 
or  two  years,  how  much  more  difficult  would  it  have  been  to 
resist  with  a  permanent  surplus  such  as  I  have  stated  ?  If 
we  find  it  so  difficult  to  resist  that  department  when  those 
who  have  been  separated  by  the  tariff  are  united,  how  utterly 
hopeless  would  have  been  the  prospect  of  resistance  were 
that  question  now  open,  and  were  those  who  are  now 
united  against  executive  encroachments  exhausting  their 
strength  against  each  other?  Is  it  not  obvious  that  the 
executive  power,  under  such  circumstances,  would  have  been 
irresistible,  and  that  we  should  have  been  impelled  rapidly 
to  despotism  or  disunion  ?  One  or  the  other  would  cer- 


404  SPEECHES. 

tainly  have  followed  if  events  had  been  permitted  to  move 
in  the  channel  in  which  they  were  then  flowing — and  des- 
potism much  more  probable  than  disunion.  It  is  almost 
without  example  that  free  states  should  be  disunited  in  con- 
sequence of  the  violence  of  internal  conflicts  ;  but  very  nu- 
merous are  the  cases  in  which  such  conflicts  have  terminated 
in  the  establishment  of  despotic  power.  The  danger  of  dis- 
union is  small ;  that  of  despotism  great.  We  have,  how- 
ever, I  trust,  escaped,  for  the  present,  the  danger  of  both,  for 
which  we  are  indebted  to  that  great  conservative  principle  of 
our  system,  which  considers  this  Government  and  that  of 
the  States  as  co-ordinates  ;  and  which  proved  successful, 
although  rejected  by  every  State  but  one,  and  although 
called  into  action  on  the  most  trying  occasion  that  can  be 
imagined,  and  under  the  most  adverse  circumstances. 

I  said  that  the  danger  has  passed  for  the  present.  The 
seeds  of  the  disease  still  remain  in  the  system.  The  act 
which  I  propose  to  repeal  accompanied  the  adjustment  of 
the  tariff.  It  was  passed  solely  on  the  ground  of  recognizing 
the  principles  in  which  it  originated,  and  to  establish  them, 
as  far  as  an  act  of  Congress  could  do  so,  as  the  permanent 
law  of  the  land.  While  these  seeds  remain,  it  will  be  in 
vain  to  expect  a  healthy  state  of  the  body  politic  :  alienation, 
the  loss  of  confidence,  suspicion,  jealousy,  on  the  part  of  the 
weaker  section  at  least,  who  have  experienced  the  bitter 
fruits  that  spring  from  those  principles,  must  accompany  the 
movements  of  this  Government.  But  these  seeds  will  not 
remain  in  the  system  without  germinating.  Unless  removed, 
the  genius  of  consolidation  will  again  exhibit  itself ;  but  in 
what  form,  whether  in  the  revival  of  the  question  from  whose 
dangers  we  have  not  yet  wholly  escaped  ;  whether  between 
North  and  South,  East  and  West  ;  whether  between  the  slave- 
holding  and  the  non-slaveholding  States  ;  the  rich  and  poor, 
or  the  capitalist  and  the  operatives,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say  ; 
but  that  it  will  again  revive  (unless,  by  your  votes,  you  ex- 


SPEECHES.  405 

punge  the  act  from  your  statute-book),  to  divide,  distract, 
and  corrupt  the  community,  is  certain.  Nor  is  it  much  less 
so  that,  when  it  again  revives,  it  will  pass  through  all  those 
stages  which  we  have  witnessed,  and,  in  all  human  proba- 
bility, consummate  itself,  and  terminate,  finally,  in  a  mili- 
tary despotism.  Keverse  the  scene — let  the  act  be  oblite- 
rated for  ever  from  among  our  laws  ;  let  the  principle  of 
consolidation  be  for  ever  suppressed,  and  that  admirable  and 
beautiful  federative  system,  which  I  have  so  imperfectly  por- 
trayed, be  firmly  established, — and  renovated  health  and 
vigor  will  be  restored  to  the  body  politic,  and  our  country 
may  yet  realize  that  permanent  state  of  liberty,  prosperity, 
and  greatness,  which  we  all  once  so  fondly  hoped  was  our 
allotted  destiny. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Protest  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
delivered  in  the  Senate,  May  6th,  1834. 

IN  order  to  have  a  clear  conception  of  the  nature  of  the 
controversy  in  which  the  Senate  finds  itself  involved  with  the 
President,  it  will  be  necessary  to  pass  in  review  the  events 
of  the  last  few  months,  however  familiar  they  may  be  to  the 
members  of  this  body. 

Their  history  may  be  very  briefly  given.  It  is  well 
known  to  all,  that  the  act  incorporating  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  made  that  institution  the  fiscal  agent  of  the 
Government ;  and  that,  among  other  provisions,  it  directed 
that  the  public  money  should  be  deposited  in  its  vaults. 
The  same  act  vested  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  with  the 
power  of  withholding  the  deposits,  and,  in  the  event  of  with- 
holding them,  required  him  to  report  his  reasons  to  Congress. 


406  SPEECHES. 

The  late  Secretary,  on  the  interference  of  the  President,  re- 
fused to  withhold  the  deposits,  on  the  ground  that  satisfac- 
tory reasons  could  not  be  assigned  ;  for  which  the  President 
removed  him,  and  appointed  the  present  incumbent  in  his 
place  expressly  with  a  view  that  he  should  perform  the  act 
his  predecessor  had  refused  to  do.  He  accordingly  removed 
the  deposits,  and  reported  his  reasons  to  Congress  ;  and  the 
whole  transaction  was  thus  brought  up  for  our  approval  or  dis- 
approval entirely  by  the  act  of  the  Executive,  without  partici- 
pation or  agency  on  our  part ;  and  we  were  thus  placed  in  a 
situation  in  which  we  were  compelled  to  express  our  appro- 
bation or  disapprobation  of  the  transaction,  or  to  shrink  from 
the  performance  of  an  important  duty.  We  could  not  hesi- 
tate. The  subject  was  accordingly  taken  up,  and  after 
months  of  deliberation,  in  which  the  whole  transaction  was 
fully  investigated  and  considered,  and  after  the  opinions  of 
all,  the  friends  as  well  as  the  opponents  of  the  administra- 
tion, were  fully  expressed,  the  Senate  passed  a  resolution 
disapproving  the  reasons  of  the  Secretary.  But  they  were 
compelled  to  go  further.  That  resolution  covered  only  a 
part  of  the  transaction,  and  that  not  the  most  important. 
The  Secretary  was  but  the  agent  of  the  President  in  the 
transaction.  He  had  been  placed  in  the  situation  he  occu- 
pied expressly  with  a  view  of  executing  the  order  of  the 
President,  who  had  openly  declared  that  he  assumed  the 
responsibility,  and  his  declaration  was  reiterated  here  in  the 
debate  by  those  who  are  known  to  speak  his  sentiments.  To 
omit,  under  these  circumstances,  an  expression  of  the  opinion 
of  the  Senate  in  relation  to  this  transaction,  viewed  as  the 
act  of  the  President,  would  have  been,  on  the  part  of  the 
Senate,  a  manifest  dereliction  of  duty. 

With  this  impression  the  second  resolution  was  adopted. 
It  was  drawn  up  in  the  most  general  terms,  and  with  great 
care,  with  the  view  to  avoid  an  expression  of  opinion  as  to  the 
motive  of  the  Executive,  and  to  limit  the  expression  simply 


SPEECHES.  407 

to  the  fact,  that,  in  the  part  he  had  taken  in  the  transaction, 
he  had  assumed  powers  neither  conferred  by  the  constitution 
nor  the  laws,  but  in  derogation  of  both.  It  is  this  resolution, 
thus  forced  upon  us,  and  thus  cautiously  expressed,  which 
has  so  deeply  offended  the  President,  and  called  forth  his 
Protest,  in  which  he  has  undertaken  to  judge  of  the  powers 
of  the  "Senate  ;  to  assign  limits  in  their  exercise  to  which 
they  may,  and  beyond  which  they  shall  not  go ;  to  deny 
their  right  to  pass  the  resolution ;  to  charge  them  with 
usurpation  and  the  violation  of  law  and  of  the  constitution 
in  adopting  it ;  and,  finally,  to  interpose  between  the  Senate 
and  their  constituents,  and  virtually  to  pronounce  upon  the 
validity  of  the  votes  of  some  of  its  members  -on.  the  ground 
that  they  do  not  conform  with  the  wilL-of  their  constituents. 

This  is  a  brief  statement  of  the  controversy,  which  pre- 
sents for  consideration  the  question,  What  is  the  real  nature  of 
the  issue  between  the  parties  ? — a  question  of  the  utmost  mag- 
nitude, and  on  the  just  and  full  comprehension  of  which  the 
wisdom  and  propriety  of  our  course  must  mainly  depend. 

It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  issue 
involves  the  question,  whether  the  Senate  had  a  right  to 
pass  the  resolution  or  not ;  or  what  is  its  character  ;  or 
whether  it  be  true  in  point  of  fact  or  principle  ;  or  whether 
it  was  expedient  to  adopt  it.  All  these  are  important  ques- 
tions, but  they  were  fully  and  deliberately  considered,  and 
were  finally  decided  by  the  Senate,  on  their  responsibility  to 
their  constituents,  in  the  adoption  of  the  resolution — finally 
and  irrevocably  decided  ;  so  that  they  cannot  be  opened  for 
reconsideration  and  decision  by  the  will  of  the  body  itself 
according  to  the  rules  of  its  proceedings,  much  less  on  the 
demand  of  the  President.  No  ;  the  question  is  not^whether 
we  had  a  right Lto _pass_the  resolution.  It -is- one  of  a~very 
different  character,  and  jof  much  greater  magnitude.  It  4s 
whether  the  President  has  a  right  to  question  our  decision  ? 
This  Js-the  real  qneajjonjat  issue — a  question  which  goes 


408  SPEECHES. 

in  its  consequences  to  all  the  powers  of  the  Senate,  and 
which  involves  in  its  decision  the  fact,  whether  it  is  a  sepa- 
rate and  independent  branch  of  the  Government,  or  a  mere 
appendix  of  the  executive  department.  If  the  President 
has,  indeed,  the  right  to  question  our  opinion — if  we  are  in 
fact  accountable  to  him,  then  all  that  he  has  done  has  been 
rightfully  done  ;  then  he  would  have  the  right  to  send  us  his 
Protest ;  then  he  would  have  the  right  to  judge  of  our 
powers,  and  to  assign  limits  beyond  which  we  shall  not  pass  ; 
then  he  would  have  the  right  to  deny  our  authority  to  pass 
the  resolution,  and  to  accuse  us  of  usurpation  and  the  viola- 
tion of  law  and  of  the  constitution  in  its  adoption.  But  if 
he  has  not  the  right,  if  we  are  not  accountable  to  him,  then 
all  that  he  has  done  has  been  wrongfully  done,  and  his  whole 
course  from  beginning  to  end,  in  relation  to  this  matter, 
would  be  an  open  and  palpable  violation  of  the  constitution 
and  the  privileges  of  the  Senate. 

Fortunately,  this  very  important  question,  which  has  so 
direct  a  bearing  on  the  very  existence  of  the  Senate  as  a 
deliberative  body,  is  susceptible  of  the  most  certain  and 
unquestionable  solution.  Under  our  system,  all  who  exercise 
power  are  bound  to  show,  when  questioned,  by  what  author- 
ity it  is  exercised.  I  deny  the  right  of  the  President  to  ques- 
tion the  proceedings  of  the  Senate — utterly  deny  it ;  and  I 
call  upon  his  advocates  and  supporters  on  this  floor  to  exhibit 
his  authority  ;  to  point  out  the  article,  the  section,  and  the 
clause  of  the  constitution  which  contains  it  ;  to  show,  in  a 
word,  the  express  grant  of  the  power.  None  other  can  fulfil 
the  requirements  of  the  constitution.  I  proclaim  it  as  a 
truth — as  an  unquestionable  truth  of  the  highest  import,  and 
heretofore  not  sufficiently  understood,  that  the  President  has 
no  right  to  exercise  any  implied  or  constructive  power,  I 
speak  upon  the  authority  of  the  constitution  itself,  which,  by 
an  express  grant,  has  vested  all  the  implied  and  constructive 
powers  in  Congress,  and  in  Congress  alone.  Hear  what  the 


SPEECHES.  409 

constitution  says  :  Congress  shall  have  power  "  to  make  all 
laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into 
execution  the  foregoing  powers  (those  granted  to  Con- 
gress), and  all  other  power  vested  by  this  constitution  in 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  department 
or  officer  thereof." 

Comment  is  unnecessary — the  result  is  inevitable.  The 
Executive  cannot,  and,  I  may  add,  no  department  except  the 
legislative. caiT  exercise  any 'powe^lH^Towf  express  grant  by 
the  constitution,  or  by  authority  of  law — a  noble  and  wise 
provision,  full  of  the  most  important  consequences.  By  it, 
ours  Is  made  emphatically  a  constitutional  and  legal  govern- 
ment, instead  of  a  government  controlled  by  the  discretion 
or  caprice  of  those  who  are  appointed  to  administer  and  exe- 
cute its  powers.  By  it,  our  Government,  instead  of  consist- 
ing  of  threejjndependent,  separate,  conflicting  and  hostile 
departments,  has  all  its  powers  blended  harmoniously  into 
one,  without  the  danger  of  conflict,  and  without  destroying 
the  separate  and  independent  existence  of  the  parts.  Let  us 
pause  for  a  moment  to  contemplate  this  admirable  provision, 
and  the  simple  but  efficient  contrivance  by  which  these  hap- 
py results  are  secured. 

It  has  often  been  said  that  this  provision  of  the  constitu- 
tion was  unnecessary ;  that  it  grew  out  of  abundant  caution, 
to  remove  the  possibility  of  a  doubt  as  to  the  existence  of 
implied  or  constructive  powers  ;  and  that  they  would  have 
existed  without  it,  and  to  the  full  extent  that  they  now  do. 
They  who  consider  the  provision  in  this  light,  as  mere  sur- 
plusage, do  great  injustice  to  the  wisdom  of  those  who  formed 
the  constitution.  I  shall  not  deny  that  implied  or  construc- 
tive powers  would  have  existed,  and  to  the  full  extent  that 
they  now  do,  without  this  provision  ;  but,  had  it  been  omit- 
ted, a  most  important  question  would  have  been  left  open  to 
controversy — Where  would  such  powers  reside?  In  each 
department  ?  Would  each  have  had  the  right  to  interpret 


410  SPEECHES. 


ills  own  power,  and  to  assume,  on  its  own  will  and  responsi- 
bility, all  the  powers  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  those  grant- 
ed to  it  by  the  constitution  ?  What  would  have  been  the 
consequence  ?  Who  can  doubt  that  a  state  of  perpetual  and 
dangerous  conflict  between  the  departments  would  be  the 
necessary,  the  inevitable  result,  and  that  the  strongest  would 

/  ultimately  absorb  all  the  powers  of  the  other  departments  ? 
/  Need  I  designate  which  is  that  strongest  ?  Need  I  prove 
that  the  Executive,  the  armed  interpreter,  as  I  said  on  an- 
other occasion,  vested  with  the  patronage  of  the  Government, 
would  ultimately  become  the  sole  expounder  of  the  constitu- 
tion ?  It  was  to  avoid  this  dangerous  conflict  between  the 
departments,  and  to  provide  most  effectually  against  the 

N.  abuses  of  discretionary  or  implied  powers,  that  this  provision 
has  vested  all  the  implied  powers  in  Congress.  But,  it  may 
be  asked,  are  they  not  liable  to  abuse  in  the  hands  of  Con- 
gress ?  Will  not  the  same  principle  of  our  nature,  which 
impels  one  department  to  encroach  upon  the  other,  equally 
impel  Congress  to  encroach  upon  the  executive  department  ? 
Those  who  framed  the  constitution  clearly  foresaw  this  dan- 
ger, and  have  taken  measures  effectually  to  guard  against  it. 
With  this  view,  the  constitution  has  raised  the  President 
from  being  a  mere  executive  officer,  to  a  participation  in  the/ 
legislative  functions  of  the  Government ;  and  has,  among 
other  legislative  powers,  clothed  him  with  that  of  the  veto, 
mainly  with  a  view  to  protect  his  rights  against  the  encroach- 
ment of  Congress.  In  virtue  of  this  important  power,  no  bill 
can  become  a  law  till  submitted  for  his  consideration.  If  he 
approves,  it  becomes  a  law  ;  but  if  he  disapproves,  it  is  re- 
turned to  the  House  in  which  it  originated,  and  cannot  be- 
come one  unless  passed  by  two-thirds  of  both  Houses.  And 
in  order  to  guard  his  powers  against  the  encroachments  of 
Congress,  through  all  the  avenues  by  which  it  can  possibly  be 
approached,  the  constitution  expressly  provides,  "  that  every 
order,  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of  the 


SPEECHES.  411 

Senate  and  House  of  ^Representatives  may  be  necessary, 
[none  other  can  operate  beyond  the  limits  of  their  respective 
halls,]  except  on  a  question  of  adjournment,  shall  be  pre- 
sented to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and,  before  the 
same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him  ;  or,  being 
disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by  two-thirds  of  the 
Senate  and  the  House  of  Bepresentatives,  according  to  the 
rules  and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a  bill."  Theses 
provisions,  with  the  patronage  of  the  Executive,  give  ample 
protection  to  the  powers  of  the  President  against  the  en-, 
croachment  of  Congress,  as  experience  has  abundantly  shown. 
But  here  a  very  important  question  presents  itself,  which, 
when  properly  considered,  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  the  ques- 
tion under  consideration.  Why  has  the  constitution  limite 
the  veto  power  to  bills,  and  to  the  orders,  votes,  and  resolu-^ 
tions,  requiring  the  concurrence  of  both  Houses  ?  Why  not 
also  extend  it  to  their  separate  votes,  orders,  or  resolutions  ? 
But  one  answer  can  be  given.  The  object  was  to  protect  tl 
independence  of  the  two  Houses  ;  to  prevent  the  Execute 
from  interfering  with  their  proceedings,  or  to  have  any 
trol  over  them,  as  is  attempted  in  his  Protest ; — and  this,  < 
the  great  principle  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  liberty, 
and  without  which  it  cannot  be  preserved — that  deliberative 
bodies  should  be  left  without  extraneous  control  or  influence, 
free  to  express  their  opinions  and  to  conduct  their  proceed-/ 
ings,  according  to  their  own  sense  of  propriety.  And 
find,  accordingly,  that  the  constitution  has  not  only  limited 
the  veto  to  the  cases  requiring  the  concurring  votes  of  the 
two  Houses,  but  has  expressly  vested  each  House  with  the 
power  of  establishing  its  own  rules  of  proceeding,  according 
to  its  will  and  pleasure,  without  limitation  or  check.  With- 
in these  walls,  then,  the  Senate  is  the  sole  and  absolut 
judge  of  its  own  powers  ;  and  as  to  the  mode  of  9onducting 
the  business,  and  determining  how,  and  when,  our  opinions 
ought  to  be  expressed,  there  is  no  other  standard  of  right  01 


412  SPEECHES. 

wrong  to  which  an  appeal  can  be  made,  but  the  constitution, 
/and  the  rules  of  proceeding  established  under  the  authority 
/  of  the  Senate  itself.     And  so  solicitous  is  the  constitution  to 
secure  to  each  House  a  full  control  over  its  own  proceedings, 
And  the  freest  and  fullest  expression  of  opinion  on  all  sub- 
jects, that  even  the  majesty  of  the  laws  are  relaxed  to  insure 
a  perfect  freedom  of  debate.     It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that 
the  provision  of  the  constitution  which  I  have  cited,  invest- 
i/|  ing  Congress  solely  with  the  implied  or  constructive  powers, 
is  so  worded  as  not  to  comprehend  the  discretionary  powers 
/  of  each  of  the  two  Houses  in  determining  the  rules  of  their 
L  respective  proceedings,  and  which,  of  course,  places  each  be- 
*-  yond  the  interference  of  Congress  itself. 

Let  us  now  cast  our  eyes  back,  in  order  that  we  may 
comprehend,  at  a  single  glance,  the  admirable  arrangements 
by  which  the  harmony  of  the  Government  is  secured,  with- 
out impairing  the  separate  existence  and  independence  of 
either  of  the  departments.  In  order  to  prevent  the  conflicts 
which  would  have  resulted,  necessarily,  if  each  department 
had  been  left  to  construe  its  own  powers,  all  the  implied  or 
constructive  powers  are  vested  in  Congress  ;  that  Congress 
should  not,  through  its  implied  powers,  encroach  upon  the 
executive  department,  the  President  is  clothed  with  the  veto 
power  ;  and  that  his  veto  should  not  interfere  with  the  rights 
of  the  two  Houses  to  control  their  respective  proceedings,  it 
is  limited  to  bills  or  votes  that  require  the  concurrence  of  the 
two  Houses.  It  is  thus  that  walls  are  interposed  to  protect 
the  rights  which  belong  to  us,  as  a  separate  constituent  mem- 
ber of  the  Government,  from  the  encroachments  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive power  ;  and  it  is  thus  that  the  power  which  is  placed 
in  his  hands,  as  a  shield  to  protect  him  against  the  implied 
or  constructive  powers  of  Congress,  is  prevented  from  being 
converted  into  a  sword  to  attack  the  rights  exclusively  vested 
-ihe  two  Houses. 
Having  now  established  beyond  controversy  that  the 


SPEECHES.  413 

President  has  no  implied  or  constructive  power ;  that  he  has 
no  authority  to  exercise  any  right  not  expressly  granted  to 
him  by  the  constitution,  or  vested  in  him  by  law ;  and  that 
the  constitution  has  secured  to  the  Senate  the  sole  right  of 
regulating  its  own  proceedings,  free  from  all  interference, 
the  fabric  reared  by  this  paper,  and  which  rests  upon  the 
opposite  basis,  presupposing  the  right  to  the  fullest  and 
boldest  assumption  of  discretionary  powers  on  the  part  of  the 
President,  falls  prostrate  in  the  dust.  Entertaining  these 
views,  it  will  not  be  expected  that  I  should  waste  the  time 
of  the  Senate  in  examining  its  contents  ;  but,  if  additional 
proofs  were  necessary  to  confirm  the  truth  of  my  remarks, 
and  to  show  how  strong  would  have  been  the  tendency  to 
conflict,  and  how  dangerous  it  would  have  been  to  have  left 
the  several  departments  in  possession  of  the  right  to  exercise 
implied  powers  at  their  pleasure,  this  paper  would  afford  the 
strongest.  In  illustration  of  the  correctness  of  this  assertion, 
I  will  select  two  or  three  of  its  leading  positions,  which  will 
show  what  feeble  barriers  reason  or  regard  to  consistency 
would  interpose  to  prevent  conflict  between  the  departments, 
or  to  protect  the  legislative  from  the  executive  branch  of 
the  Government ;  and  how  regardless  the  President  is  of 
consistency  and  reason  where  the  object  is  the  advancement 
of  the  powers  of  his  department. 

In  order  to  prove  that  the  Senate  had  no  right  to  pass 
the  resolution  in  question,  the  President  enters  into  a  long 
disquisition  on  the  nature  and  character  of  our  Government. 
He  tells  us,  that  it  consists  of  three  separate  and  indepen- 
dent departments — the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial. 
That  the  first  is  vested  in  Congress ;  the  second  in  the  Presi- 
dent ;  and  the  last  in  the  courts,  with  a  few  exceptions,  which 
he  enumerates.  He  also  informs  us  that  these  departments 
are  coequal,  and  that  neither  has  the  right  to  coerce  or 
control  the  other ;  and  then  concludes  that  the  Senate  had 
no  right  to  pass  the  resolution  in  question. 


414  SPEECHES. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  inquire  whether  the  view  of  the 
Government  which  the  President  has  presented  be,  or  be  not 
correct ;  though  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  his 
conception  as  to  their  coequality  and  independence,  taken 
in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  these  terms,  would  deprive  the 
Senate  of  all  its  judicial  powers,  and  much  of  its  legislative. 
I  will  assume  that  his  views  are  correct ;  and  that,  as  co- 
equal departments,  neither  has  the  right  to  interfere  with 
the  other, — and  what  follows  ?  If  we  have  no  right  to  disap- 
prove of  his  conduct,  he  surely  has  none,  on  his  own  prin- 
ciple, to  disapprove  of  ours.  It  would  seem  impossible  that 
so  obvious  and  necessary  a  consequence  could  be  overlooked  ; 
yet  so  blind  is  ambition  in  pursuit  of  power,  so  regardless  of 
reason  or  consistency,  that  the  President,  while  he  denies  to 
us  the  right  to  interfere  with  him,  or  question  his  acts,  does 
not  hesitate  to  charge  the  Senate,  directly  and  repeated!}  y 
with  usurpation,  and  a  violation  of  the  laws  and  of  the  con- 
stitution. 

The  advocates  of  the  President  could  not  but  feel  the 
glaring  inconsistency  and  absurdity  of  his  course  ;  and,  in 
order  to  reconcile  his  conduct  with  the  principles  he  laid 
down,  asserted,  in  the  discussion,  that  he  sent  his  Protest,  not 
as  President  of  the  United  States,  but  in  his  individual 
character  as  Andrew  Jackson.  We  may  assert  any  thing — 
that  black  is  white,  or  that  white  is  black.  Every  page, 
every  line  of  this  paper  contradicts  the  assertion.  He, 
throughout,  speaks  in  his  official  character  as  President  of 
the  United  States,  and  regards  the  supposed  injury  that  has 
been  done  him,  as  an  injury,  not  in  his  private,  but  in  his 
official  character.  But  the  explanation  only  removes  the 
difficulty  one  step  further  back.  I  would  ask  what  right 
has  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  divest  himself  of 
his  official  character  in  a  question  between  him  and  this  body 
touching  his  official  conduct  ?  Where  is  his  authority  to 
descend  from  his  high  station,  in  order  to  defend  himself,  as 


SPEECHES.  415 

a  mere  private  individual,  in  what  relates  to  him  in  his  public 
character  ? 

But  the  part  of  this  paper  which  is  the  most  character- 
istic, that  which  lets  us  into  the  real  nature  and  character  of 
this  movement,  is  the  source  from  which  the  President  de- 
rives the  right  to  interfere  with  our  proceedings.  He  does 
not  even  pretend  to  derive  it  from  any  power  vested  in  him 
by  the  constitution,  express  or  implied.  He  knew  that  such 
an  attempt  would  be  utterly  hopeless,  and,  accordingly,  in- 
stead of  a  question  of  right,  he  makes  it  a  question  of  duty ; 
and  thus  inverts  the  order  of  things,  referring  rights  to 
duties,  instead  of  duties  to  rights,  and  forgetting  that  rights 
always  precede  duties,  which  are  in  fact  but  the  obligations 
they  impose,  and,  of  course,  that  they  do  not  confer  power. 
The  opposite  view — that  on  which  he  acts,  and  which  would 
give  to  the  President  a  right  to  assume  whatever  duty  he 
might  choose,  and  to  convert  such  duties  into  powers,  would, 
if  admitted,  render  him  as  absolute  as  the  Autocrat  of  all 
the  Russias.  Taking  this  erroneous  view  of  his  powers,  he 
could  be  at  little  loss  to  justify  his  conduct ; — to  justify,  did 
I  say  ?  He  takes  higher,  far  higher  ground ;  he  makes  his 
interference  a  matter  of  obligation — of  solemn  obligation — of 
imperious  necessity,  the  tyrant's  plea.  He  tells  us  that  it 
was  due  to  his  station — to  public  opinion — to  proper  self- 
respect — to  the  obligation  imposed  by  his  constitutional  oath 
— his  duty  to  see  the  laws  faithfully  executed — his  respon- 
sibility as  the  head  of  the  executive  department — and  to  the 
American  people  as  their  immediate  representative,  to  inter- 
pose his  authority  against  the  usurpations  of  the  Senate. 
Infatuated  man !  blinded  by  ambition — intoxicated  by  flat- 
tery and  vanity !  Who,  that  is  the  least  acquainted  with 
the  human  heart ;  who,  that  is  conversant  with  the  pages  of 
history,  does  not  see,  under  all  this,  the  workings  of  a  dark, 
lawless,  and  insatiable  ambition,  which,  if  not  arrested,  must 
finally  impel  him  to  his  own  or  his  country's  ruin  ? 


416  SPEECHES. 

It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  this  Protest 
is  the  termination  of  his  hostility  towards  the  Senate.  It  is 
but  the  commencement — it  is  the  proclamation  in  which  he 
makes  known  his  will  to  the  Senate,  claims  their  obedience, 
and  admonishes  them  of  their  danger  should  they  refuse  to 
repeal  their  ordinance — no,  not  ordinance — their  resolution. 
I  am  hurried  away  by  the  recollection  of  the  events  of  the 
last  session.  The  hostilities  then  and  now  waged  are  the 
same  in  their  nature,  character,  and  principle,  differing  only 
in  their  objects  and  the  parties.  Then  it  was  directed  against 
a  sovereign  member  of  this  confederacy ;  now  against  the 
Senate.  Then  the  Senate  was  associated  with  the  Executive 
as  its  ally ;  now  it  is  the  object  of  his  attack.  I  repeat, 
hostilities  will  be  prosecuted  against  us  unless  we  repeal  our 
resolution — to  effect  which  is  the  object  of  sending  us  this 
Protest.  For,  disguise  it  as  we  may,  to  receive  this  Protest, 
and  to  enter  it  upon  our  journals,  would  be  a  virtual  repeal, 
a  surrender  of  our  rights,  and  an  acknowledgment  of  his  su- 
periority ;  and  in  that  light  it  would  be  considered  by  the 
country  and  the  world — by  the  present  and  future  genera- 
tions. 

Should  we  repeal  our  resolutions,  by  receiving  and  enter- 
ing this  Protest  on  the  journals,  we,  no  doubt,  will  be  taken 
into  favor,  and  our  past  offences  be  forgiven  :  but  if  not,  we 
may  expect  that  the  war  message  (unless,  indeed,  the  public 
indignation  should  arrest  it)  will  follow  in  due  time,  of  which 
the  Protest  contains  many  indications  not  to  be  misunder- 
stood. 

It  is  impossible  for  the  most  careless  observer  to  read 
this  paper  without  being  struck  with  the  extreme  solicitude 
which  the  President  evinces  to  place  himself  in  a  position 
between  the  Senate  and  the  people.  He  tells  us  again  and 
again,  with  the  greatest  emphasis,  that  he  is  the  immediate 
representative  of  the  American  people.  He  the  immediate 
representative  of  the  American  people  !  I  thought  the  Pre- 


SPEECHES.  417 

sident  professed  to  be  a  State  Eights'  man,  placed  at  the 
head  of  the  State  Eights'  party  ;  that  he  believed  the  people 
of  these  States  were  united  in  a  constitutional  compact,  as 
forming  distinct  and  sovereign  communities  ;  and  that  no 
such  community  or  people  as  the  American  people,  taken 
in  the  aggregate,  existed.  I  had  supposed  that  he  was  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  the  only  title  by  which  he  is 
legally  and  constitutionally  known  ;  and  that  the  American 
people  are  not  represented  in  a  single  department  of  the 
Government ;  no,  not  even  in  the  other  House  which  repre- 
sents the  people  of  the  several  States  as  distinct  from  the 
people  in  the  aggregate,  as  was  solemnly  determined  at  the 
very  commencement  of  the  Government,  under  the  imme- 
diate authority  of  Washington  himself.  Such,  I  had  sup- 
posed, was  the  established  political  creed  of  the  party  at  the 
head  of  which  he  professed  to  be,  and  yet  he  claims  to  be 
not  only  the  representative,  but  the  immediate  representa- 
tive of  the  American  people.  What  effrontery  !  What 
boldness  of  assertion  !  The  immediate  representative  !  Why, 
he  never  received  a  vote  from  the  American  people.  He  was 
elected  by  the  electors  chosen  either  by  the  people  of  the 
States  or  by  their  legislatures  ;  and,  of  course,  is  at  least  as 
far  removed  from  the  people  as  the  members  of  this  body, 
who  are  elected  by  legislatures  chosen  by  the  people ;  and 
who,  if  the  truth  must  be  told,  more  fully  and  perfectly  re- 
present the  people  of  these  States  than  the  electoral  colleges, 
since  the  introduction  of  National  Conventions  composed  of 
office-holders  and  aspirants,  under  whose  auspices  the  presi- 
dential candidate  of  the  dominant  party  is  selected,  and  who, 
instead  of  the  real  voice  of  the  people,  utter  that  of  a  merce- 
nary corps,  with  interests  directly  hostile  to  theirs. 

But  why  all  this  solicitude  on  the  part  of  the  President 

to  place  himself  near  to  the  people,  and  to  push  us  off  to 

the  greatest  distance  ?  Why  this  solicitude  to  make  himself 

their  sole  representative — their  only  guardian  and  protector 

VOL.  H. — 27 


418  SPEECHES. 

— their  only  friend  and  supporter  ?  The  object  cannot  be 
mistaken.  It  is  preparatory  to  further  hostilities — to  an 
appeal  to  the  people  ;  and  is  intended  to  prepare  the  way  in 
order  to  transmit  to  them  his  declaration  of  war  against  the 
Senate — to  -enlist  them  as  his  allies  in  the  contest  which  he 
contemplates  waging  against  this  branch  of  the  Government. 
If  any  one  doubts  his  intention,  let  him  cast  his  eyes  over  the 
contents  of  this  paper,  and  mark  with  what  anxiety  he  seeks 
to  place  himself  in  an  attitude  hostile  to  the  Senate  ;  how  he 
has  converted  a  simple  expression  of  opinion  into  an  accusa- 
tion— a  charge  of  guilt  ;  a  denunciation  of  his  conduct,  an 
impeachment, — in  which  he  represents  himself  as  having  been 
tried  and  condemned  without  hearing  or  investigation.  The 
President  is  an  old  tactician,  and  understands  well  the 
advantage  of  carrying  on  a  defensive  war  with  offensive 
operations,  in  which  the  assailed  assaults  the  assailant ;  and 
his  object  is  to  gain  a  position  so  commanding  in  the  prose- 
cution of  the  hostilities  which  he  meditates. 

Having  secured  this  important  position,  as  he  supposes, 
he  next  endeavors  to  excite  the  sympathy  of  the  people, 
whom  he  seeks  to  make  his  allies  in  the  contest.  He  tells 
them  of  his  wounds — wounds  received  in  the  war  of  the 
Kevolution  ;  of  his  patriotism  ;  of  his  disinterestedness  ;  of 
his  freedom  from  avarice  or  ambition  ;  of  his  advanced  age, 
and,  finally  of  his  religion  ;  of  his  indifference  to  the  affairs 
of  this  life,  and  of  his  solicitude  for  that  which  is  to  come. 
Can  we  mistake  the  object  ?  Who  does  not  see  what  is  in- 
tended ?  Let  us  bring  under  a  single  glance  the  facts  of 
the  case.  He  first  seized  upon  the  public  money,  took  it 
from  the  custody  of  the  law,  and  placed  it  in  his  own  pos- 
session,— as  much  so,  as  if  placed  in  his  own  pocket.  The 
Senate  disapproves  of  the  act,  and  opposes  the  only  obstacle 
that  prevents  him  from  becoming  complete  master  of  the 
public  treasury.  To  crush  the  resistance  which  they  inter- 
pose to  his  will,  he  seeks  a  quarrel  with  them  ;  and,  with 


SPEECHES.  419 

this  view,  seizes  on  the  resolution  in  question  as  the  pretext. 
He  sends  us  a  Protest  against  it,  in  which  he  resorts  to  every 
art  to  enlist  the  feelings  of  the  people  on  his  side,  prepara- 
tory to  a  direct  appeal  to  them  to  engage  as  his  allies  in  the 
war  which  he  intends  to  carry  on  against  the  Senate  till  they 
submit  to  his  authority.  He  has  proclaimed,  in  advance, 
that  the  right  to  interfere  involves  the  right  to  make  that 
interference  effectual.  To  make  it  so,  force  only  is  wanted. 
Give  him  an  adequate  force,  and  a  speedy  termination  would 
be  put  to  the  controversy. 

Since,  then,  hostilities  are  intended,  it  is  time  that  we 
should  deliberate  how  we  ought  to  act — how  the  assaults 
upon  our  constitutional  rights  and  privileges  ought  to  be 
met.  If  we  consult  what  is  due  to  the  wisdom  and  dignity 
of  the  Senate,  there  is  but  one  mode  :  meet  it  at  the  thresh- 
old. Encroachments  are  most  easily  resisted  at  the  com- 
mencement. It  is  at  the  extreme  point — on  the  frontier, 
that,  in  a  contest  of  this  description,  the  assailant  is  the 
weakest,  and  the  assailed  the  strongest.  It  is  there  that 
the  purpose  of  the  usurper  is  the  most  feeble,  and  the  in- 
dignation of  those  whose  rights  are  encroached  upon,  the 
strongest.  Permit  the  frontier  of  our  rights  to  be  passed 
and  let  the  question  be, — not  resistance  to  usurpation,  but 
at  what  point  we  shall  resist, — and  the  conquest  will  be  more 
thani  half  achieved.  I,  at  least,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  will  act 
on  these  principles.  I  shall  take  my  stand  at  the  door  of  the 
Senate,  if  I  should  stand  there  alone.  I  deny  the  right  of 
the  President  to  send  us  his  Protest.  I  deny  his  right  to 
question,  within  this  chamber,  our  opinions  in  any  case,  or 
in  reference  to  any  subject  whatever.  He  has  no  right 
to  enter  here  in  hostile  array.  These  walls  separate  us. 
Beyond  this,  he  has  his  veto  to  protect  his  rights  against 
aggressions  from  us  ;  but  within,  our  authority  is  above  his 
interference  or  control. 

Entertaining  these  views,  I,  for  one,  cannot  agree  to  re- 


420  SPEECHES. 

ceive  the  Protest.  But  it  is  said  that  the  Senate  nevei  iras 
yet  refused  to  receive  a  message  from  the  President.  In 
reply,  I  answer,  it  has  never  yet  agreed  to  receive  a  Pro- 
test from  him  ;  and  I,  at  least,  shall  not  contribute  by  my 
vote  to  establish  the  first  precedent  of  the  kind.  With  these 
impressions,  although  I  agree  to  the  resolutions  offered  by 
the  Senator  from  Mississippi  (Mr.  Poindexter),  as  modified,  a 
sense  of  duty  will  compel  me  to  go  further,  and  to  add,  at 
the  proper  time,  two  additional  resolutions  ;  one  affirming 
that  the  President  has  no  right  to  protest  against  our  pro- 
ceedings, and  the  other  refusing  to  receive  this,  his  Protest. 

I  have  now  said  all  that  I  intend  in  reference  to  the  ques- 
tion at  issue  between  the  Senate  and  the  President  ;  and 
will  conclude  by  a  few  remarks  addressed  more  directly  to 
the  Senate  itself. 

Of  all  the  surprising  events,  said  Mr.  C.,  in  these  sur- 
prising times,  none  has  astonished  me  more  than  that  there 
should  be  any  division  of  opinion,  even  the  slightest,  to  the 
right  of  the  Senate  to  pass  the  resolution  which  has  been 
seized  on  as  the  pretext  to  send  us  this  Protest.  Before  the 
commencement  of  the  discussion,  I  would  not  have  believed 
that  there  was  a  single  individual  hi  our  country,  the  least 
conversant  with  parliamentary  proceedings,  who  entertained 
any  doubt  of  the  right  of  any  free  and  deliberative  body  fully 
and  freely  to  discuss  and  express  their  opinions  on  all  sub- 
jects relating  to  the  public  interests,  whether  in  reference  to 
men  or  measures,  or  whether  in  approbation  or  disapproba- 
tion. I  venture  the  assertion  that  such  a  right  has  never 
been  questioned  before  in  this  country  ;  either  here,  or  in  the 
State  legislatures,  or  in  Great  Britain,  for  the  last  century, 
by  any  party,  whig  or  tory.  Nor  is  my  astonishment  dimi- 
nished by  the  distinction  which  has  been  attempted  to  be 
drawn  between  the  expression  of  an  opinion  in  reference  to 
the  conduct  of  public  officers,  intended  to  terminate  in  some 
legislative  act,  and  those  not  so  intended— a  distinction  with- 


SPEECHES.  421 

out  example  or  precedent,  and  without  principle  or  reason. 
Nor  am  I  less  surprised  that  it  should  be  gravely  asserted, 
as  it  has  been  in  debate,  that  the  resolution  in  question  was 
not  intended  to  terminate  in  some  ulterior  legislative  mea- 
sure. How  this  impression  was  made,  or  ventured  to  be  ex- 
pressed, I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  ;  as  it  was  openly  avowed, 
and  fully  understood,  that  we  only  waited  for  the  proper 
moment  to  carry  the  resolution  into  effect,  by  giving  it  the 
form  of  a  joint  act  of  both  Houses.  Nor  is  the  attempt  to 
limit  our  legislative  functions  by  our  judicial,  in  reference  to 
the  resolutions,  less  extraordinary.  I  had  supposed  that  our 
judicial  were  in  addition  to  our  legislative  functions,  and  not 
in  diminution  ;  and  that  we  possess  to  the  full  extent,  with- 
out limitation  or  subtraction,  all  the  legislative  powers  pos- 
sessed by  the  House  of  Representatives,  with  a  single  excep- 
tion, as  provided  in  the  constitution.  Were  it  possible  to 
raise  a  rational  doubt  on  the  subject,  the  example  of  the 
English  parliament  would  clearly  prove  that  our  judicial 
functions  impose  no  restrictions  on  our  legislative.  It  is 
well  known  that  the  House  of  Lords,  like  the  Senate,  possesses 
the  power  of  trying  impeachments — and  I  venture  to  assert, 
that,  in  the  long  course  of  time  in  which  it  has  exercised  this 
power,  not  a  single  case  can  be  pointed  out  in  which  it  was 
supposed  that  its  judicial  functions  were  diminished  in  any 
degree  by  its  legislative  ; — and  when  we  consider  that  this 
portion  of  our  constitution  is  borrowed  from  the  British, 
their  example  must  be  considered  decisive  as  to  the  point 
under  consideration. 

But  let  us  reflect  a  moment  to  what  extent  we  must 
necessarily  be  carried,  if  we  once  admit  the  principle.  If 
the  Senate  has  no  right,  in  consequence  of  its  judicial 
functions,  to  express  an  opinion,  by  vote  or  resolution,  in 
reference  to  the  legality  or  illegality  of  the  acts  of  public 
functionaries,  Senators  can  have  no  right  to  express  such 
opinion  individually  in  debate  ;  as  the  objection,  if  it  exists 


422 


SPEECHES. 


at  all,  goes  to  the  expression  of  an  opinion  by  individuals  aa 
well  as  by  the  body.  He  who  has  made  up  an  opinion,  and 
avowed  it  in  debate,  would  be  as  much  disqualified  to  per- 
form his  judicial  functions  as  a  judge  on  a  trial  of  impeach- 
ment, as  if  he  had  expressed  it  by  a  vote  ;  and,  of  course, 
whatever  restrictions  the  judicial  functions  of  the  Senate 
may  be  supposed  to  impose,  would  be  restrictions  on  the 
liberty  of  discussion,  as  well  as  that  of  voting ;  and  conse- 
quently destroy  the  freedom  of  debate  secured  to  us  by  the 
constitution. 

I  am,  indeed,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  amazed  that  so  great  a 
misconception  of  the  essential  powers  of  a  deliberative  body 
should  be  formed,  as  to  deny  to  a  legislative  assembly  the 
right  to  express  its  opinions  on  all  subjects  of  a  public  nature 
freely,  fully,  and  without  restriction  or  limitation.  It  in- 
herently belongs  to  the  law-making  power— the  power  to 
make,  repeal,  and  to  modify  the  laws — to  deliberate  upon 
the  state  of  the  Union — to  ascertain  its  actual  condition — 
the  causes  of  existing  disorders — to  determine  whether  they 
originated  in  the  laws,  or  in  their  execution,  and  to  devise 
the  proper  remedy.  What  sort  of  a  legislative  body  would 
it  be,  that  had  no  right  to  pronounce  an  opinion  whether  a 
law  was  or  was  not  in  conformity  to  the  constitution,  and 
whether  it  had  or  had  not  been  violated  by  those  appointed 
to  administer  the  laws  ?  What  could  be  imagined  more  ab- 
surd ?  And  yet,  if  the  principle  contended  for  be  correct, 
such  would  be  the  character  of  the  Senate.  We  would  have 
no  right  to  pronounce  a  law  unconstitutional,  or  to  assert 
that  it  had  been  violated,  lest  it  should  disqualify  us  from 
performing  our  judicial  functions. 

There  seems  to  be,  said  Mr.  C.,  a  great  misconception  in 
reference  to  the  real  motive  and  character  of  the  legislative 
and  executive  functions.  The  former  is,  in  its  nature,  de- 
liberative, and  involves,  necessarily,  free  discussion,  and  a  full 
expression  of  opinion  on  all  subjects  of  public  interest.  The 


SPEECHES.  423 

latter  is  essentially  the  power  of  executing,  and  has  no  power 
of  deliberation  beyond  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the  law, 
and  carrying  its  enactments  into  execution  ;  and  even  within 
this  limited  sphere,  its  constructions  of  its  powers  are  formed 
under  responsibility  not  only  to  public  opinion,  but  also  to 
the  legislative  department  of  the  Government. 

But  wherever  the  Executive  is  vested  with  any  portion 
of  legislative  functions,  so  essentially  do  those  functions  in- 
volve the  right  of  deliberation,  and  a  full  and  free  expression 
of  opinion,  that  they  transfer  with  them,  to  the  Executive, 
the  right  of  freely  expressing  his  opinions  on  all  subjects  con- 
nected with  such  functions.  Thus  the  President  of  the 
United  States, — who  is  vested  by  the  constitution  with  the 
right  of  communicating  to  Congress  information  on  the  state 
of  the  Union ;  of  recommending  to  its  consideration  such 
measures  as,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  interests  may  require  ; 
to  approve  of  its  acts  ;  and  to  ratify  treaties  which  have  re- 
ceived the  consent  of  the  Senate, — has,  in  the  performance 
of  all  these  high  legislative  functions,  a  right  to  express  his 
opinion  as  to  the  nature,  and  character,  and  constitutionality 
of  all  the  measures,  the  consideration  of  which  may  be  in- 
volved in  the  performance  of  these  duties — a  right  which  the 
present  chief  magistrate  has,  on  all  occasions,  freely  exer- 
cised, as  we  have  witnessed  this  session,  both  in  his  annual 
message,  and  the  one  announcing  his  veto  on  the  land  bill. 
In  the  former  he  pronounced  the  United  States  Bank  to  be 
unconstitutional,  and  has,  of  course,  according  to  his  own 
principle,  impeached  the  conduct  of  Washington  and  Madi- 
son (the  former  of  whom  signed  the  charter  of  the  first 
bank,  and  the  latter  of  the  present),  and  all  of  the  mem- 
bers of  both  Houses  of  Congress  who  voted  for  the  act  incor- 
porating them. 

I  am  mortified,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  in  this  coun- 
try, boasting  of  its  Anglo-Saxon  descent,  any  one  of  re- 
spectable standing,  much  less  the  President  of  the  United 


424  SPEECHES. 

States,  should  be  found  to  entertain  principles  leading  tc 
such  monstrous  results  ;  and  I  can  scarcely  believe  myself  tc 
be  breathing  the  air  of  our  country,  and  to  be  within  the 
walls  of  the  Senate  chamber,  when  I  hear  such  doctrines  vin- 
dicated. It  is  proof  of  the  wonderful  degeneracy  of  the 
times — of  a  total  loss  of  the  true  conceptions  of  constitu- 
tional liberty.  But,  in  the  midst  of  tins  degeneracy,  I  per- 
ceive the  symptoms  of  regeneration.  It  is  not  my  wish  to 
touch  on  the  party  designations  that  have  recently  obtained, 
and  which  have  been  introduced  in  the  debate  on  this  occa- 
sion. I,  however,  cannot  but  remark,  that  the  revival  of  the 
party  names  of  the  Revolution,  after  they  had  so  long  slum- 
bered, is  not  without  a  meaning,  nor  without  an  indication 
of  a  return  to  those  principles  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of 
our  liberty. 

Gentlemen  ought  to  reflect  that  the  extensive  and  sud- 
den revival  of  these  names  could  not  be  without  some  ade- 
quate cause.  Names  are  not  to  be  taken  or  given  at  pleas- 
ure ;  there  must  be  something  to  cause  their  application  to 
adhere.  If  I  remember  rightly,  it  was  Augustus,  in  all  the 
plenitude  of  his  power,  who  said  that  he  found  it  impossible 
to  introduce  a  new  word.  What,  then,  is  that  something  ? 
What  is  there  in  the  meaning  of  Whig  and  Tory,  and  what 
in  the  character  of  the  times,  which  has  caused  their  sudden 
revival  as  party  designations,  at  this  time  ?  I  take  it,  that 
the  very  essence  of  toryism — that  which  constitutes  a  tory, 
is  to  sustain  prerogative  against  privilege — to  support  the 
executive  against  the  legislative  department  of  the  Govern- 
ment,  and  to  lean  to  the  side  of  power  against  the  side  of 
liberty ;  while  whig  is,  in  all  these  particulars,  of  the  very 
opposite  principles.  These  are  the  leading  characteristics  of 
the  respective  parties,  whig  and  tory,  and  run  through  their 
application  in  all  the  variety  of  circumstances  in  which  they 
have  been  applied  either  in  this  country  or  Great  Britain. 
Their  sudden  revival  and  application  at  this  time  ought  to 


SPEECHES.  425 

admonish  my  old  friends  who  are  now  on  the  side  of  the  ad- 
ministration, that  there  is  something  in  the  times — some- 
thing in  the  existing  struggle  between  the  parties,  and  in  the 
principles  and  doctrines  advocated  by  those  in  power,  which 
has  caused  so  sudden  a  revival,  and  such  extensive  applica- 
tion of  the  terms.  I  have  not  contributed  to  their  introduc- 
tion, nor  am  I  desirous  of  seeing  them  applied  ;  but  I  must 
say  to  those  who  are  interested,  that  nothing  but  the  reversal 
of  their  course  can  possibly  prevent  their  application.  They 
owe  it  to  themselves — they  owe  it  to  the  chief  magistrate 
whom  they  support  (who,  at  least,  is  venerable  for  his  years) 
as  the  head  of  their  party,  that  they  should  halt  in  their 
support  of  the  despotic  and  slavish  doctrines  which  we  hear 
daily  advanced,  before  a  return  of  the  reviving  spirit  of 
liberty  shall  overwhelm  them,  with  those  who  are  leading 
them,  to  their  ruin. 

I  can  speak,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  with  impartiality.  As 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  wish  no  change  of  party  designa- 
tions— I  am  content  with  that  which  designates  those  with 
whom  I  act.  It  is,  I  admit,  not  very  popular,  but  is  at  least 
an  honest  and  patriotic  name.  It  is  synonymous  with  re- 
sistance to  usurpation — usurpation,  come  from  what  quarter 
and  under  what  shape  it  may  ;  whether  it  be  of  this  Govern- 
ment on  the  rights  of  the  States,  or  of  the  Executive  on 
those  of  the  legislative  department. 


SPEECHES. 


^    SPEECH 

On  the  Bill  to  Eepeal  the  Four  Years'  Law,  and  to 
Regulate  the  Power  of  Removal,  delivered  in  the 
Senate,  February  th,  1835. 

ME.  CALHOUN  said  :  The  question  involved  in  the  third 
section  of  the  bill,  whether  the  .power  to  dismiss  an  officer 
of  the  Government  can  be  controlled  and  regulated  by  Con- 
gress, or  is  under  the  exclusive  and  unlimited  control  of  the 
President,  is  no  ordinary  question,  which  may  be  decided 
either  way,  without  materially  affecting  the  character  and 
practical  operation  of  the  Government.  It  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, a  great  and  fundamental  question,  on  the  decision  of 
which  will  materially  depend  the  fact,  whether  this  Govern- 
ment shall  prove  to  be  what  those  who  framed  it  supposed  it 
was — a  free,  popular,  and  republican  Government,  or  a  mon- 
archy in  disguise. 

This  important  question,  said  Mr.  C.,  has  been  very  fully 
and  ably  discussed  by  those  who  have  preceded  me  on  the 
side  I  intend  to  advocate.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  repeat 
their  arguments,  nor  to  enforce  them  by  additional  illustra- 
tions. I  propose  to  confine  myself  to  a  single  point  of  view ; 
but  that  point  I  hold  to  be  decisive  of  the  question. 

If  the  power  to  dismiss  is  possessed  by  the  Executive,  he 
must  hold  it  in  one  of  two  modes  :  either  by  an  express  grant 
jytjf  the  power  in  the  constitution,  or  as  a  power  necessary  and 
\proper  to  execute  some  power  expressly  granted  by  that  in- 
strument. All  the  powers  under  the  constitution  may  be 
classed  under  one  or  the  other  of  these  heads  ;  there  is  no 
intermediate  class.  The  first  question  then  is,  Has  the  Presi- 
dent the  power  in  question  by  any  express  grant  in  the  con- 
stitution ?  He  who  affirms  he  has,  is  bound  to  show  it. 


SPEECHES.  427 

That  instrument  is  in  the  hands  of  eveiy  member ;  the  por- 
tion containing  the  delegation  of  power  to  the  President  is 
short.  It  is  comprised  in  a  few  sentences.  I  ask  Senators 
to  open  the  constitution,  to  examine  it,  and  to  find,  if  they 
can,  any  authority  given  to  the  President  to  dismiss  a  public 
officer.  None  such  can  be  found  ;  the  constitution  has  been 
carefully  examined,  and  no  one  pretends  to  have  found  such 
a  grant.  Well,  then,  as  there  is  none  such,  if  it  exists  at 
all,  it  must  exist  as  a  power  necessary  and  proper  to  execute 
some  granted  power  ;  but  if  it  exists  in  that  character,  it 
belongs  to  Congress,  and  not  to  the  Executive.  I  venture  not 
this  assertion  hastily  ;  I  speak  on  the  authority  of  the  con- 
stitution itself — an  express  and  unequivocal  authority  which 
cannot  be  denied  nor  contradicted.  Hear  what  that  sacred 
instrument  says :  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all 
laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into 
execution  the  foregoing  powers  (those  granted  to  Congress 
itself),  and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this  constitution  in 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  department 
or  officer  thereof."  Mark  the  fulness  of  the  expression.  Con- 
gress shall  have  power  to  make  all  laws,  not  only  to  carry 
into  effect  the  powers  expressly  delegated  to  itself,  but  those 
delegated  to  the  Government,  or  any  department  or  officer 
thereof;  comprehending,  of  course,  the  power  to  pass  laws 
necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into  effect  the  powers  express- 
ly granted  to  the  executive  department.  It  follows  that,  to 
whatever  express  grant  of  power  to  the  Executive  the  power 
of  dismissal  may  be  supposed  to  attach  ;  whether  to  that  of 
seeing  the  laws  faithfully  executed,  or  to  the  still  more  com- 
prehensive grant,  as  contended  for  by  some,  vesting  execu- 
tive powers  in  the  President,  the  mere  fact  that  it  is  a  power 
appurtenant  to  another  power,  and  necessary  to  carry  it  into 
effect,  transfers  it,  by  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  cited, 
from  the  Executive  to  Congress,  and  places  it  under  its  con- 
trol, to  be  regulated  in  the  manner  which  it  may  judge  best. 


428  SPEECHES. 

If  there  be  truth  in  reasoning  on  political  subjects,  the  con- 
clusion at  which  I  have  arrived  cannot  be  resisted.  I  would 
entreat  gentlemen  who  are  opposed  to  me,  said  Mr.  C.,  to 
pause  and  reflect ;  and  to  point  out,  if  possible,  the  slightest 
flaw  in  the  argument,  or  to  find  a  peg  on  which  to  hang  a 
doubt.  Can  they  deny  that  all  powers  under  the  constitution 
are  either  powers  specifically  granted,  or  powers  necessary  and 
proper  to  carry  such  into  execution  ?  Can  it  be  said  that 
there  are  inherent  powers  comprehended  in  neither  of  these 
classes,  and  existing  by  a  sort  of  divine  right  in  the  Govern- 
ment ?  The  Senator  from  New- York  (Mr.  Wright)  attempt- 
ed to  establish  some  such  position  ;  but  the  moment  my  col- 
league touched  it  with  the  spear  of  truth,  he,  Mr.  W.,  shrunk 
from  the  deformity  of  his  own  conception.  Or  can  it  be  as- 
serted that  there  are  powers  derived  from  obligations  higher 
than  the  constitution  itself  ?  The  very  intimation  of  such  a 
source  of  power  hurled  from  office  the  predecessor  of  the 
present  incumbent.  But  if  it  cannot  be  denied  that  all  the 
powers  under  the  constitution  are  comprised  under  one  or  the 
other  of  these  classes,  and  if  it  is  acknowledged,  as  it  is  on 
all  sides,  that  the  power  of  dismissal  is  not  specifically  grant- 
ed by  the  constitution,  it  follows  by  an  irresistible  and  neces- 
sary consequence,  that  the  power  belongs  not  to  the  Execu- 
tive, but  to  Congress,  to  be  regulated  and  controlled  at  its 
pleasure. 

I  should  be  gratified,  said  Mr.  C.,  if  any  one  who  enter- 
tains an  opposite  opinion  would  attempt  to  refute  this  argu- 
ment, and  to  point  out  wherein  it  is  defective  ;  for  such  per- 
fect confidence  do  I  feel  in  its  soundness,  that  I  will  yield  the 
floor  to  any  Senator  who  may  rise  and  say  that  he  is  prepared 
to  refute  it. 

[Here  Mr.  Talmadge,  from  New- York,  rose,  and  said  that  lie  was 
not  satisfied  with  the  argument,  and  would  attempt  to  show  its  error. 
Mr.  C.  sat  down  for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  an  opportunity,  when 


SPEECHES.  429 

Mr.  T.  began  a  formal  speech  on  the  subject  generally,  without  at- 
tempting to  meet  Mr.  C.'s  argument,  when  the  latter  arose  and  said, 
that  Mr.  T.  had  mistaken  him  ;  that  he  did  not  yield  the  floor  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  Mr.  T.  to  make  a  speech,  but  to  enable  him  to 
refute  the  argument  which  Mr.  C.  had  advanced  ;  and  that  if  Mr.  T. 
was  not  prepared  to  do  so,  he,  Mr.  C.,  would  proceed  in  the  dis- 
cussion.] 

Mr.  C.  proceeded,  and  said :  The  argument  on  which  I 
have  relied,  has  been  alluded  to  by  the  Senator  from  Ten- 
nessee (Judge  White),  and  my  friend  from  Kentucky,  who 
sits  before  me  (Judge  Bibb)  ; — and  the  Senator  from  Tennes- 
see (Mr.  Grundy),  whom  I  am  sorry  not  to  see  in  his  place, 
attempted  a  reply.  He  objected  to  the  argument,  on  the 
ground  that  the  construction  put  upon  the  clause  which  has 
been  quoted,  would  divest  the  President  of  a  power  express- 
ly granted  him  by  the  constitution.  I  must,  said  Mr.  C., 
express  my  amazement,  that  one  so  clear-sighted,  and  so  ca- 
pable of  appreciating  the  just  force  of  an  argument,  should 
give  such  an  answer.  Were  the  power  of  dismissal  a  grant- 
ed power,  the  argument  would  be  sound  j  but  as  it  is  not,  to 
contend  that  the  construction  would  divest  him  of  the  power, 
is  an  assumption,  without  the  slightest  foundation  to  sustain 
it.  It  is  his  construction,  in  fact,  which  divests  Congress  of 
an  expressly  granted  power,  and  not  ours  which  divests  the 
President :  by  his,  he  would  take  from  Congress  the  author- 
ity expressly  granted,  of  passing  all  laws  necessary  and  pro- 
per to  carry  into  effect  the  granted  powers,  under  the  pre- 
text that  the  exercise  of  such  a  power  on  the  part  of  Con- 
gress would  divest  the  Executive  of  a  power  nowhere  grant- 
ed in  the  constitution. 

I  feel,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  I  must  appear  to  repeat  unneces- 
sarily, what  of  itself  is  so  clear  and  simple  as  to  require  no 
illustration  ;  but  I  know  the  obstinacy  of  party  feelings  and 
preconceived  opinions,  and  with  what  difficulty  they  yield  to 


430  SPEECHES. 

the  clearest  demonstration.  Nothing  can  overthrow  them  but 
repeated  blows. 

Such,  said  Mr.  C.,  are  the  arguments  by  which  I  have 
been  forced  to  conclude,  that  the  power  of  dismissing  is  not 
lodged  in  the  President,  but  is  subject  to  be  controlled  and 
regulated  by  Congress.  I  say  forced,  because  I  have  been 
compelled  to  the  conclusion  in  spite  of  my  previous  impres- 
sions. Belying  upon  the  early  decision  of  the  question,  and 
the  long  acquiescence  in  that  decision,  I  had  concluded,  with- 
out examination,  that  it  had  not  been  disturbed,  because  it 
rested  upon  principles  too  clear  and  strong  to  admit  of  doubt. 
I  remained  passively  under  this  impression,  until  it  became 
necessary,  during  the  last  session,  to  examine  the  question — 
when  I  took  up  the  discussion  on  it  in  1789,  with  the  expec- 
tation of  having  my  previous  impression  confirmed.  The  re- 
sult was  different.  I  was  struck,  on  reading  the  debate,  with 
the  force  of  the  arguments  of  those  who  contended  that  the 
power  was  not  vested  by  the  constitution  in  the  Executive. 
To  me  they  appeared  to  be  far  more  statesman-like  than  the 
opposite  arguments,  and  to  partake  much  more  of  the  spirit 
of  the  constitution.  After  reading  this  debate,  I  turned  to 
the  constitution,  which  I  read  with  care  in  reference  to  the 
subject  discussed,  when,  for  the  first  time,  I  was  struck  with 
the  full  force  of  the  clause  which  I  have  quoted,  and  which, 
in  my  opinion,  for  ever  settles  the  controversy. 

I  will  now,  said  Mr.  C.,  proceed  to  consider  what  will 
be  the  effect  on  the  operation  of  the  system  under  the  con- 
struction which  I  have  given.  In  the  first  place,  it  would 
put  down  all  discretionary  power,  and  convert  the  Govern- 
ment into  what  the  framers  intended  it  should  be — a  govern- 
ment of  laws  and  not  of  discretion.  If  the  construction  be 
established,  no  officer  from  the  President  to  the  constable, 
and  from  the  Chief  Justice  to  the  lowest  judicial  officer, 
could  exercise  any  power  but  what  is  expressly  granted  by 
the  constitution  or  by  some  act  of  Congress  :  and  thus  that, 


SPEECHES.  431 

which  in  a  free  state  is  the  most  odious  and  dangerous  of  all 
things — the  discretionary  power  of  those  who  are  charged 
with  the  execution  of  the  laws — will  be  effectually  suppressed, 
and  the  dominion  of  the  laws  be  fully  established. 

It  would,  in  the  next  place,  unite,  harmonize,  and  blend 
into  one  whole  all  the  powers  of  the  Government,  and  pre- 
vent that  perpetual  and  dangerous  conflict  which  would  neces- 
sarily exist  between  its  departments,  under  the  opposite  con- 
struction. Permit  each  department  to  judge  of  the  extent 
of  its  own  powers,  and  to  assume  the  right  to  exercise  all 
powers  which  it  may  deem  necessary  and  proper  to  execute 
the  powers  granted  to  it,  and  who  does  not  see  that,  in  fact 
the  Government  would  consist  of  three  independent,  separate, 
and  conflicting  departments,  without  any  common  point  ,of 
union — instead  of  one  united  authority  controlling  the  wholej^ 
Nor  would  it  be  difficult  to  foresee  in  what  this  contest  Be- 
tween conflicting  departments  would  terminate.  The  Exec- 
utive must  prevail  over  the  other  departments  ;  for  without 
its  concurrence  the  action  of  the  other  departments  are  im- 
potent. Neither  the .  decrees  of  the  Court  nor  the  acts  of 
Congress  can  be  executed  but  through  the  executive  author- 
ity ;  and  if  the  President  be  permitted  to  assume  whatever 
power  he  may  deem  to  be  appurtenant  to  his  granted  powers, 
and  to  decide  according  to  his  will  and  pleasure,  and  on  his 
own  responsibility,  whether  the  decision  of  the  Court  or  the 
acts  of  Congress  are  or  are  not  consistent  with  the  rights 
which  he  may  arrogate  to  himself,  it  is  impossible  not  to  see 
that  the  authority  of  the  legislative  and  judicial  departments 
would  be  under  his  control.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  foresee  that 
if  he  may  add  the  power  of  dismissal  to  that  of  appointment, 
and  thus  assert  unlimited  control  over  all  who  hold  office,  he 
would  find  but  little  difficulty  in  maintaining  himself  in  the 
most  extravagant  assumptions  of  power.  We  are  not  with- 
out experience  on  this  subject.  To  what  l)ut  to  the  false  and 
dangerous  doctrine  against  which  I  am  contending,  and  into 


432  SPEECHES. 

which  the  present  Chief  Magistrate  has  fallen,  are  we  to  at- 
tribute the  frequent  conflicts  between  the  Executive  and  the 
other  departments  of  the  Government ;  and  which  so  strongly 
illustrate  the  truth  of  what  I  have  stated  ?  Under  the  op- 
posite and  true  view  of  our  system,  all  these  dangerous  jars 
and  conflicts  would  cease.  (  It  unites  the  whole  into  one,  and 
the  legislative  becomes,  as  it  ought  to  be,  the  centre  of  the 
system, — the  stomach,  and  the  brain, — into  which  all  is 
taken,  digested,  and  assimilated,  and  by  which  the  action  of 
the  whole  is  regulated  by  a  common  intelligence ;  and  this 
without  destroying  the  distinct  and  independent  functions  of 
the  parts.,  Each  is  left  in  possession  of  the  powers  expressly 
granted  by  the  constitution,  and  which  may  be  executed 
without  the  aid  of  the  legislative  department,  and,  in  the 
exercise  of  which,  there  is  no  possibility  of  coming  into  con- 
flict with  the  other  departments;  while  all  discretionary 
powers  necessary  to  execute  the  granted,  and  in  the  exercise 
of  which  the  separate  departments  would  necessarily  come 
into  conflict,  are  by  a  wise  and  beautiful  provision  of  the 
constitution  transferred  to  Congress,  to  be  exercised  solely 
according  to  its  discretion  ; — thus  avoiding,  as  far  as  the  de- 
partments of  the  Government  are  concerned,  the  possibility 
of  collision  betwen  the  parts,  j  By  a  provision  no  less  wise, 
this  union  of  power  in  Congress  is  so  regulated  as  to  prevent 
the  legislative  from  absorbing  the  other  departments  of  the 
Government.  To  guard  the  Executive  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  Congress,  the  President  is  raised  from  his  mere 
ministerial  functions  to  a  participation  in  the  enactment  of 
laws.  By  a  provision  in  the  constitution,  his  approval  is  re- 
quired to  the  acts  of  Congress  ;  and  his  veto,  given  him  as 
a  shield  to  protect  him  against  the  encroachments  of  the  leg- 
islative department,  can  arrest  the  acts  of  Congress,  unless 
passed  by  two-thirds  of  both  Houses.  And  here  let  me  say, 
that  I  cannot  concur  in  the  resolution  offered  by  my  friend 
from  Maryland  (Mr.  Kent),  which  proposes  to  divest  the  Ex- 


SPEECHES.  433 

ecutive  of  his  veto.  I  hold  it  to  be  indispensable ;  mainly 
on  the  ground  that  the  constitution  has  vested  in  Congress 
the  high  discretionary  power  under  consideration,  which,  but 
for  the  veto,  however  necessary  for  the  harmony  and  unity 
of  the  Government,  might  prove  destructive  to  the  indepen- 
dence of  the  President.  He  must  indeed  be  a  most  feeble 
and  incompetent  Chief  Magistrate  if,  aided  by  the  veto,  he 
would  not  have  sufficient  influence  to  protect  his  necessary 
powers  against  the  encroachments  of  Congress.  Nor  is  the 
judiciary  left  without  ample  protection  against  the  encroach- 
ment of  Congress.  The  independent  tenure  by  which  the 
judges  hold  their  office,  and  the  right  of  the  Court  to  pro- 
nounce when  a  case  conies  before  them  upon  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  acts  of  Congress,  as  far  at  least  as  the  other 
departments  are  concerned,  affords  to  the  judiciary  an  ample 
protection.  Thus  all  the  departments  are  united  in  one,  so 
as  to  constitute  a  single  government,  instead  of  three  distinct, 
separate,  and  conflicting  departments,  without  impairing 
their  separate  and  distinct  functions,  while  at  the  same  time 
thejpeace  and  harmony  of  the  whole  are  preserved. 
^X^There  remains,  said  Mr.  C.,  to  be  noticed  another  conse- 
quence not  less  important.  The  construction  for  which  I 
contend  strikes  at  the  root  of  that  dangerous  control  which 
the  President  would  have  over  all  who  hold  office,  if  the  power 
of  appointment  and  removal  without  limitation  or  restriction 
were  united  in  him.  Let  us  not  be  deceived  by  names.  The 
power  in  question  is  too  great  for  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  a 
free  state.  It  is  in  its  nature  an  imperial  power,  and  if  he 
be  permitted  to  exercise  it,  his  authority  must  become  as  ab- 
solute as  that  of  the  autocrat  of  all  the  Eussias.  To  give 
him  the  power  to  dismiss  at  his  will  and  pleasure,  without 
limitation  or  control,  is  to  give  him  an  absolute  and  unlim- 
ited control  over  the  subsistence  of  almost  all  who  hold  office 
under  Government.  Let  him  have  the  power,  and  the  sixty 
thousand  who  now  hold  employments  under  Government  would 
VOL.  n. — 28 


434  SPEECHES. 

become  dependent  upon  him  for  the  means  of  existence.   Of 
v    r^  x>  that  vast  multitude,  I  may  venture  to  assert  that  there  are 


few  whose  subsistence  does  not,  more  or  less,  depend 
Up0n  tkgjj.  pukiic  employments.  Who  does  not  see  that  a 
power  so  unlimited  and  despotic  over  this  great  and  powerful 
corps  must  tend  to  corrupt  and  debase  those  who  compose  it, 
and  to  convert  them  into  the  supple  and  willing  instruments 
of  him  who  wields  it  ?•/  And  here  let  me  remark,  said  Mr. 
C.,  that  I  have  been  unfairly  represented  in  reference  to  this 
point.  I  have  been  charged  with  asserting  that  the  whole 
body  of  office-holders  is  corrupt,  debased,  and  subservient  : 
with  what  views,  those  who  make  the  charge  can  best  ex- 
plain. I  have  made  no  such  assertion,  nor  could  it  with 
truth  be  made.  I  know  that  there  are  many  virtuous  and 
high-minded  citizens  who  hold  public  office  ;  but  it  is  not, 
therefore,  the  less  true  that  the  tendency  of  the  power  of  dis- 
missal is  such  as  I  have  attributed  to  it  ;  and  that  if  the 
power  be  left  unqualified,  and  the  practice  be  continued  as  it 
has  of  late,  the  result  must  be  the  complete  comiption  and 
debasement  of  those  in  public  employments/What,  Mr.  C. 
asked,  has  been  the  powerful  cause  that  naSNwrought  the 
wonderful  changes  which  history  teaches  us  have  occurred  at 
different  periods  in  the  character  of  nations  ?  What  has 
bowed  down  that  high,  generous,  and  chivalrous  feeling  —  that 

¥  independent  and  proud  spirit  which  characterized  all  free 
states  in  rising  from  the  barbarous  to  the  civilized  condition, 
and  which  finally  converted  their  citizens  into  base  sycophants 
and  flatterers  ?  Under  the  operation  of  what  cause  did  the 
proud  and  stubborn  conquerors  of  the  world,  the  haughty 
Romans,  sink  down  to  that  low  and  servile  debasement  which 
followed  the  decay  of  the  republic  ?  What  but  the  mighty 
cause  which  I  am  considering;  the  power  which  one  man 
exercised  over  the  fortunes  and  subsistence,  the  honor  and 
the  standing  of  all  those  in  office,  or  who  aspire  to  public 
employment  ?  Man  is  naturally  proud  and  independent  ; 


SPEECHES.  435 

and  if  he  loses  these  noble  qualities  in  the  progress  of  civi- 
lization, it  is  because,  by  the  concentration  of  power,  he  who 
controls  the  government  becomes  deified  in  the  eyes  of  those 
who  live  or  expect  to  live  by  its  bounty.  Instead  of  resting 
their  hopes  on  a  kind  Providence  and  their  own  honest  exer- 
tions, all  who  aspire  are  taught  to  believe  that  the  most  cer- 
tain road  to  honor  and  fortune  is  servility  and  flattery.  We 
already  experience  its  corroding  operation.  With  the  growth 
of  executive  patronage  and  the  control  which  the  Executive 
has  established  over  those  in  office  by  the  exercise  of  this 
tremendous  power,  we  witness  among  ourselves  the  progress 
of  this  base  and  servile  spirit,  which  already  presents  so  strik- 
ing a  c^ftirast  between  the  former  and  present  character  of 
our  people? 

It  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  deny  the  charge.  I  have 
marked  its  progress  in  a  thousand  instances  within  the  last 
few  years.  I  have  seen  the  spirit  of  independent  men,  hold- 
ing public  office,  sink  under  the  dread  of  this  fearful  power  ; 
too  honest  and  too  firm  to  become  the  instruments  or  flat- 
terers of  power,  yet  too  prudent,  with  all  the  consequences 
before  them,  to  whisper  disapprobation  of  what,  in  their 
hearts,  they  condemned.  Let  the  present  state  of  things 
continue — let  it  be  understood  that  none  are  to  acquire  the 
public  honors  or  to  obtain  them  but  by  flattery  and  base 
compliance,  and  in  a  few  generations  the  American  character 
will  become  utterly  corrupt  and  debased. 

Now  is  the  time  to  arrest  this  fatal  tendency.  Much  will 
depend  upon  the  vote  on  the  measure  which  is  now  before 
you.  Should  it  receive  the  sanction  of  this  body  and  the 
other  branch  of  the  legislature,  and  the  principle  be  once  es- 
tablished that  the  power  of  dismissal  is  subject  to  be  regulat- 
ed by  the  action  of  Congress,  and  is  not,  as  is  contended,  under 
the  sole-  control  of  the  Executive,  the  danger  which  now 
menaces  the  destruction  of  our  system  may  yet  be  arrested. 
The  discretionary  and  despotic  power  which  the  President 


436  SPEECHES. 

has  assumed  to  exercise  over  all  in  public  employment  would 
be  subject  to  the  control  of  law  ;  and  public  officers  instead 
of  considering  themselves  as  the  mere  agents  of  the  execu- 
tive department,  and  liable  to  be  dismissed  at  his  will  and 
pleasure  without  regard  to  conduct,  would  be  placed  under 
the  protection  of  the  law. 

But  it  is  objected  by  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr. 
Grandy),  that  the  construction  for  which  I  contend,  would 
destroy  the  power  of  the  President,  and  arrest  the  action  of 
the  Government.  I  must  be  permitted  to  express  my  sur- 
prise, said  Mr.  C.,  that  such  an  objection  should  come  from 
that  experienced  and  sagacious  Senator.  He  seems  entirely 
to  forget  that  the  President  not  only  possesses  executive  pow- 
ers, but  also  legislative  ;  and  that  he  is  not  only  a  Chief 
Magistrate,  but  also  a  part  of  the  law-making  power.  Does 
he  not  recollect  that  the  President  has  his  veto  ;  and  that  no 
law  can  be  passed  which  would  improperly  diminish  the  au- 
thority which  ought  to  belong  to  him  as  Chief  Magistrate 
without  his  consent,  unless  passed  against  his  veto  by  two- 
thirds  of  both  Houses  ? — an  event  which  it  is  believed  has 
not  occurred  since  the  commencement  of  the  Government, 
and  the  occurrence  of  which  is  highly  improbable.  How 
then  can  it  be  asserted,  that  the  construction  for  which  I 
contend  would  destroy  the  just  authority  of  the  President  ? 
Let  it  be  established,  and  what  would  follow  ?  Every  pro- 
position to  regulate  and  control  the  power  of  dismissal  would 
become  a  question  of  expediency,  and  would  be  liable  to  be 
assailed  by  all  who  might  suppose  that  it  would  impair  im- 
properly the  power  of  the  Chief  Magistrate.  And  seconded 
as  they  would  be  by  the  veto,  if  necessary,  there  could  be  but 
little  danger  that  restrictions  too  rigid  would  be  imposed  on 
his  authority.  The  Senator  from  Tennessee  also  objects  that 
the  measure  would  be  impracticable,  and  asks  with  an  air 
of  triumph,  what  would  the  Senate  do  if  the  reasons  of  the 
President  should  be  unsatisfactory  ?  I  do  not,  said  Mr.  C., 


SPEECHES.  437 

agree  with  those  who  think  that  the  Senate  can  or  ought  to 
continue  to  reject  the  nominations  of  the  President  in  such 
cases,  until  the  officer  who  has  been  dismissed  shall  be  restor- 
ed. I  believe  that  course  to  be  impracticable  ;  and  that,  in 
such  a  struggle,  the  resistance  of  the  Senate  would  be  finally 
overcome.  My  hope  is,  that  the  fact  itself  that  the  President 
must  assign  reasons  for  removals,  will  go  far  to  check  the  abu- 
ses which  now  exist.  I  cannot  think  that  any  President  would 
assign  to  the  Senate  as  a  reason  for  removal,  that  the  officer  re- 
moved was  opposed  to  him  on  party  grounds.  Such  is  the  de- 
ceptive character  of  the  human  heart,  that  it  is  reconciled  to 
do  many  things  under  plausible  covering  which  it  would  not 
openly  avow.  But  suppose  there  should  be  a  President  who 
would  act  upon  the  principle  of  removing  on  a  mere  difference 
of  opinion  without  any  other  fault  in  the  officer,  and  who 
would  be  bold  enough  to  avow  such  a  reason,  Congress  would 
not  be  at  a  loss  for  a  remedy,  on  the  principles  for  which  I 
contend.  A  law  might  be  passed  that  would  reach  the  case  ; 
it  might  be  declared  that  the  removal  of  the  President,  if 
his  reasons  should  not  prove  satisfactory,  should  act  merely 
as  a  suspension  to  the  termination  of  the  next  ensuing  ses- 
sion, unless  filled  by  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

The  Senator  from  Tennessee  has  conjured  up  a  state  of 
frightful  collision  between  the  Executive  and  the  dismissed 
officers,  and  has  represented  the  Senate  chamber  as  the  arena 
where  this  conflict  must  be  carried  on.  He  says,  if  the  Pres- 
ident should  be  bound  to  assign  his  reasons,  the  party  dis- 
missed would  of  right  have  a  claim  to  be  heard  as  to  the 
truth  and  correctness  of  those  reasons,  and  that  the  Senate 
would  have  its  whole  time  engrossed  in  listening  to  the  trial. 
All  this  is  mere  imagination,  if  the  President  on  his  part 
should  exercise  the  power  of  removal  with  the  discretion 
and  justice  which  he  ought,  and  with  which  all  the  prede- 
cessors of  the  present  Chief  Magistrate  have  in  fact  exercis- 
ed it.  Does  he  suDpose  if  a  measure,  such  as  is  now  before 


438 

the  Senate,  had  been  in  operation  at  the  commencement  of 
the  Government,  that  the  Father  of  his  country — a  man  no 
less  distinguished  by  his  moderation  than  his  wisdom,  would 
have  experienced  the  least  embarrassment  from  its  opera- 
tion ?  Does  he  suppose  that  the  dismissal  of  nine  officers 
in  eight  years  during  his  presidency,  would  have  given  all 
that  annoyance  to  him  and  to  this  body,  which  the  Senator 
anticipates  from  the  measure  ?  Would  there  have  been  any 
difficulty  in  the  time  of  the  elder  Adams,  either  to  himself 
or  to  the  Senate,  from  the  ten  officers  whom  he  dismissed 
during  his  presidency  ?  Would  any  have  been  experienced 
during  Mr.  Jefferson's  term  of  eight  years,  even  with  the 
forty-two  whom  he  dismissed  ?  Or  in  the  presidency  of  Mr. 
Madison,  that  mild  and  amiable  man,  who,  in  eight  years  of 
great  excitement,  of  which  nearly  three  was  a  period  of  war, 
dismissed  but  five  officers  ?  Or,  during  the  presidency  of 
Mr.  Monroe,  who  in  eight  years  dismissed  but  nine  officers  ? 
Or  of  the  younger  Mr.  Adams,  who  in  four  years  dismissed 
but  two  officers  ?  I  come  now,  said  Mr  C.,  to  the  present 
administration  ;  and  here  I  concede,  that  with  the  dismissal 
of  two  hundred  and  thirty  officers  in  the  first  year,  and  I 
know  not  how  many  since,  the  scene  of  trouble  and  difficul- 
ty both  to  the  President  and  the  Senate,  which  the  Senator 
from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy)  painted  in  such  lively  colors, 
might  have  occurred,  had  the  measure  been  in  operation. 
This,  however,  constitutes  no  objection  to  the  measure,  but 
to  the  abuse — the  gross  and  dangerous  abuse  of  the  power 
of  dismissal  which  it  is  intended  to  correct.  It  is  a  recom- 
mendation that  it  would  impede  aud  embarrass  the  abuse  of 
so  dangerous  a  power.  The  more  numerous  and  powerful  the 
impediments  to  such  abuses,  the  better.  I  apprehend,  said 
Mr.  C.,  that  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy)  en- 
tirely misconceives  the  operation  of  the  measure  under  a  dis- 
creet and  moderate  administration.  Under  such  an  one,  the 
charges  exhibited  against  an  officer  would  be  transmitted  to 


SPEECHES.  439 

the  accused  ;  would  undergo  a  regular  investigation  in  the 
presence  of  the  party,  and  the  accused  would  be  heard  in  his 
own  defence  before  the  charge  would  be  acted  on.  If  sus- 
tained, and  the  officer  be  discharged,  the  whole  proceedings 
would  accompany  the  nomination  of  the  successor  as  show- 
ing the  grounds  on  which  he  was  dismissed. 

During  the  time,  said  Mr.  0.,  that  I  occupied  the  place 
of  Secretary  of  War  under  Mr.  Monroe,  two  officers  of  the 
Government  holding  civil  employments  connected  with  that 
department,  were  dismissed  for  improper  conduct ;  and  in 
both  cases  the  course  which  I  have  indicated  was  adopted. 
The  officers  were  not  dismissed  until  after  a  full  investiga- 
tion, and  the  reasons  for  dismission  reduced  to  writing  and 
communicated  to  them. 

But  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy)  further 
objects,  that  the  construction  for  which  we  contend  would  con- 
centrate all  the  powers  of  the  Government  in  Congress,  and 
would  thus  constitute  the  very  essence  of  despotism,  which 
consists,  as  he  asserts,  in  uniting  the  powers  of  the  three  de- 
partments in  one.  I  could,  said  Mr.  C.,  hardly  have  antici- 
pated, that  one  whose  conceptions  are  so  clear  on  most  sub- 
jects would  venture  so  bold  an  assertion.  Has  not  the 
Senator  reflected  on  the  nature  of  the  legislative  department 
in  our  system  ?  To  make  a  law,  it  is  necessary  not  only  to 
have  the  participation  of  the  two  Houses,  but  that  also  of 
the  Executive  ;  except,  indeed,  hi  the  case  of  a  veto,  when, 
as  has  been  stated,  the  measure  must  be  passed  by  two-thirds 
of  both  Houses.  Does  he  not  see  from  this,  that  to  vest 
Congress,  as  the  constitution  has  done,  with  all  the  discre- 
tionary power,  is  to  vest  the  power  not  simply  in  the  two 
Houses,  but  also  in  the  President,  and  in  fact  to  require  the 
concurrence  of  both  departments  to  the  exercise  of  such  high 
and  dangerous  powers,  instead  of  leaving  it  to  each  separ- 
ately, as  would  have  been  the  fact  without  this  wise  pro- 
vision !  I  will  tell  the  Senator,  that  it  is  the  doctrine  for 


440  SPEECHES. 

which  he,  and  not  that  for  which  we  contend,  which  leads  to 
concentration — a  doctrine  which  would  leave  to  each  depart- 
ment to  assume  whatever  power  it  might  choose,  and  which 
in  its  necessary  effects,  as  has  been  shown,  would  concentrate 
all  the  powers  of  the  Government  in  the  Chief  Magistrate. 
This  process  has  been  going  on  under  our  eyes  rapidly  for  the 
last  few  years  ;  and  yet  the  gentleman  who  appears  now  to 
be  so  sensitive  as  to  the  danger  of  concentration,  looks  on 
with  perfect  indifference,  not  to  say  with  approbation.  We 
have,  said  Mr.  C.,  lost  all  sensibility  ;  we  have  become  callous 
and  hardened  under  the  operation  of  those  deleterious  prac- 
tices and  principles  which  characterize  the  times.  What  a 
few  years  since  would  have  shocked  and  roused  the  whole 
community,  is  now  scarcely  perceived  or  felt.  Then  the 
dismissal  of  a  few  inconsiderable  officers,  on  party  grounds  as 
was  supposed,  was  followed  by  a  general  burst  of  indignation  ; 
but  now  the  dismissal  of  thousands,  when  it  is  openly  avowed 
that  the  public  offices  are  the  "  spoils  of  the  victors,"  pro- 
duces scarcely  a  sensation.  It  passes  as  an  ordinary  event. 
The  present  state  of  the  country,  said  Mr.  C.,  was  then  anti- 
cipated. It  was  foreseen,  as  far  back  as  1826,  that  the  time 
would  come  when  the  income  of  the  Government  and  the 
number  of  those  in  its  employment  would  be  doubled — and 
that  the  control  of  the  President,  with  the  power  of  dis- 
missal, would  become  irresistible.  All  of  which  was  urged 
as  an  inducement  for  reform  at  that  early  period  ;  and  as  a 
reason  why  the  administration  then  in  power  should  be  ex- 
pelled, and  those  opposed  to  them  should  be  elevated  to  their 
places.  But  now  when  this  prophecy  has  been  realized,  we 
seem  perfectly  insensible  of  the  danger  to  which  the  liberty 
and  institutions  of  the  country  are  exposed.  Among  the 
symptoms  of  the  times,  said  Mr.  0.,  which  indicate  a  deep 
and  growing  decay,  I  would  place  among  the  most  striking, 
the  difference  in  the  conduct  of  those  who  seek  public  em- 
ployment before  and  after  their  elevation.  In  the  language 


SPEECHES.  441 

of  the  indignant  Eoman,  they  solicit  offices  in  one  manner  and 
use  them  in  another.  And  this  remark  was  not  more  true 
of  that  degenerated  state  of  the  noblest  of  all  the  republics 
of  antiquity,  than  it  is  of  ours  at  the  present  time.  It  is 
not  only,  said  Mr.  C.,  a  symptom  of  decay,  but  it  is  also 
a  powerful  cause.  When  it  comes  to  be  once  understood 
that  politics  is  a  game  ;  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  it  but 
act  a  part ;  that  they  make  this  or  that  profession,  not  from 
honest  conviction  or  an  intent  to  fulfil  them,  but  as  the 
means  of  deluding  the  people,  and  through  that  delusion  to 
acquire  power ; — when  such  professions  are  to  be  entirely 
forgotten — the  people  will  lose  all  confidence  in  public  men  ; 
all  will  be  regarded  as  mere  jugglers — the  honest  and  the 
patriotic  as  well  as  the  cunning  and  the  profligate  ;  and  the 
people  will  become  indifferent  and  passive  to  the  grossest 
abuses  of  power,  on  the  ground  that  those  whom  they  may 
elevate  under  whatever  pledges,  instead  of  reforming,  will  but 
imitate  the  example  of  those  whom  they  have  expelled. 

I,  said  Mr.  C.,  rejoice,  however,  that  there  are  many  who 
are  counted  in  the  administration  ranks,  who  have  a  proper 
regard  for  the  professions  of  the  party  while  canvassing  for 
power.  I  see  the  commencement  of  a  separation  between 
those  who  are  disposed  to  go  ah1  lengths,  to  abandon  all  for- 
mer principles  in  the  support  of  power,  and  those  who  are 
not  disposed  to  advance  beyond  the  point  where  they  now 
stand.  Let  those  who  are  disposed  to  sustain  the  power  of 
the  Executive,  however  extravagant,  reflect  on  what  has 
occurred  during  the  present  discussion,  and  the  manly  and 
independent  sentiments  which  have  been  expressed  in  the 
ranks  of  the  administration  itself,  and  they  will  see  cause  to 
halt  in  their  course.  They  have  pushed  things  as  far  as  they 
can  be  pushed  with  safety — to  push  them  further  must  end 
in  division  and  overthrow. 

But  the  Senator  from  New- York  (Mr.  Wright)  regards 
all  this  alarm  on  account  of  the  vast  increase  of  executive 


442  SPEECHES 

power,  as  perfectly  imaginary.  He  contends  that  the  view 
drawn  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  as  to  the  extent  of 
patronage,  is  greatly  exaggerated ;  and  for  this  purpose 
assails  that  part  of  the  report  which  treats  of  the  number  of 
those  in  the  employment  of  the  Government  and  living  on 
its  bounty,  as  constituting  one  of  the  elements  of  Executive 
patronage.  The  Senator  is  possessed  of  clear  perception  and 
strong  powers  of  discrimination,  and  I  anticipated  from  the 
confident  manner  in  which  he  expressed  himself,  that  he  had 
discovered  some  flaw  or  weakness  in  that  portion  of  the  re- 
port. He  is  not  usually  the  man  to  make  bold  assertions 
without  his  proof ;  but  I  must  say  that,  in  this  case,  the 
Senator  has  disappointed  me.  What  error  or  exaggeration 
has  he  discovered  in  the  report  ?  Has  he  shown  the  num- 
ber stated  to  be  greater  than  in  reality  it  is  ?  Has  he  shown 
that  there  is  any  error  in  the  various  heads  under  which  they 
are  classified  ?  Or  that  there  is  a  single  class  which  does  not 
contribute  to  swell  the  power  and  influence  of  the  Execu- 
tive ?  He  has  not  even  made  an  attempt  to  point  out  any 
error  of  the  kind.  He  drew  his  number  and  classification 
from  the  report  itself,  and  has  not  pretended  to  show  that 
there  has  been  any  over  estimate  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mittee attached  to  any  one  of  the  classes.  But  though  the 
Senator  has  not  succeeded  in  showing  an  over  estimate,  he 
has  labored  strenuously,  though  I  must  say  unsuccessfully, 
to  show  that  the  patronage  is  far  less  than  in  reality  it  is. 
The  Senator  would,  for  instance,  have  us  lay  aside  the  pen- 
sioners, as  adding  little  or  nothing  to  the  patronage  of  the 
Government !  I  had,  said  Mr.  C.,  supposed  that  he  was  too 
good  a  judge  of  human  nature,  not  to  know  that  the  mere  fact 
of  living  on  the  bounty  of  Government,  naturally  disposes  a 
man  to  take  sides  with  power.  If  to  this  we  add  the  fact, 
that  the  pensioner  is  liable  to  have  his  pension  questioned, 
whether  he  is  rightfully  entitled  to  it  or  not,  and  that  the 
decision  of  this  question,  so  important  to  him,  rests  with 


SPEECHES.  443 

those  in  power ;  that  there  are  thousands  who  are  seeking 
pensions  who  must  look  in  the  same  direction  for  the  grati 
fication  of  their  wishes — to  say  nothing  of  the  host  of  pension- 
agents  in  and  out  of  Congress  whose  importance  and  influ- 
ence with  the  people  may  depend  upon  their  success  in 
obtaining  pensions — we  may  realize  the  vast  addition  which 
so  large  a  pension-list  as  ours  is  calculated  to  give  to  the 
patronage  of  the  Executive.  I  am  informed,  said  Mr.  0.3  that 
a  single  member,  in  one  session,  obtained  upwards  of  three 
hundred  and  fifty  pensions  ;  and  can  the  Senator  doubt  how 
much  he  was  strengthened  in  his  district  by  his  success, 
when  a  majority  of  those  whom  he  so  successfully  served 
were  probably  voters  ?  Taking  every  thing  into  considera- 
tion, so  far  from  considering  the  pensions  as  an  inconsider- 
able source  of  influence  and  patronage,  as  the  Senator  would 
have  us  believe,  I  am  of  the  impression  that  it  is  among  the 
most  fruitful  sources  of  both  ;  and  that  to  the  late  extension 
of  the  number  of  pensioners,  we  may  attribute  the  strength 
of  the  administration  in  some  of  the  States  of  the  Union.  I 
have  great  respect  for  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  Chief  of 
the  Pension  Bureau,  and  I  do  not  wish  to  be  considered  as 
making  any  personal  imputations. 

The  Senator  from  New- York  next  tells  us  that  the  army 
contributes  very  little  to  the  influence  and  patronage  of  the 
Executive  ;  that  it  consists  principally  of  soldiers,  and  those 
for  the  most  part  located  on  the  frontiers,  far  removed  from 
the  scenes  of  political  struggles.  The  Senator  would  seem' 
to  have  very  imperfect  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  the  in- 
fluence which  an  army  brings  to  a  government.  Is  he  igno- 
rant that  it  is  to  be  fed,  and  clothed,  and  housed,  and 
removed,  at  the  expense  of  millions,  wherever  employed  ? 
and  that  all  this  heavy  expenditure  must  bring  a  correspond- 
ing increase  of  power  and  influence  ?  I,  for  my  part,  said 
Mr.  C.,  consider  an  army  among  a  spirited  people,  armed  and 
accustomed  to  the  use  of  arms  as  the  Americans  are,  as  far 


444  SPEECHES. 

more  dangerous  on  account  of  the  patronage  which  it  brings 
to  the  Government,  than  on  account  of  its  physical  force  , 
and  it  is  mainly  under  this  impression,  that  I  have  ever  been 
opposed  to  its  increase  beyond  the  point  necessary  to  pre- 
serve proper  military  organization  and  skill. 

The  Senator,  taking  the  same  fallacious  view,  would  put 
the  navy  out  of  the  list,  as  contributing  but  little  to  the 
patronage  of  the  Government.  What  I  have  said  in  reference 
to  the  army  is  equally  applicable  to  the  navy,  and  supersedes 
the  necessity  of  saying  more  on  the  subject. 

But  the  final  objection  of  the  Senator  implies  that  the 
power  and  patronage  of  the  Government  would  be  great,  as  far 
as  the  number  of  officers  who  are  employed  may  contribute 
to  it,  if  they  were  all  custom-house  officers,  and  some  other 
classes  of  officers,  which  he  estimates  at  some  three  or  four 
thousand,  and  which  he  admits  are  calculated  to  exercise 
some  influence.  I  acknowledge,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  they  are 
not  so  powerful  as  they  would  be  if  they  consisted  of  the 
classes  referred  to  by  the  Senator  ;  but  let  me  tell  him,  that 
if  we  had  a  corps  of  one  hundred  thousand  such,  the  friends 
of  liberty  might  surrender  in  despair — our  cause  would  be 
hopeless !  The  people  could  not  resist  them  for  six  months. 

I  have  now,  said  Mr.  0.,  concluded  what  I  intended  to 
say  on  the  question  involved  in  the  third  section  of  the  bill, 
and  will  next  proceed  to  notice  some  objections  to  the  other 
portions.  The  Senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy)  ob- 
jects to  the  first  section,  which  proposes  to  repeal  the  Four 
Years'  Law,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  diminish  the  power 
of  the  Senate,  and  increase  that  of  the  President.  If  such 
was  the  fact,  the  last  quarter  from  which  I  should  expect 
such  an  objection  would  be  that  from  which  it  comes.  But 
the  Senator  may  dismiss  his  fears.  There  is  not  the  slight- 
est ground  for  the  apprehension  which  he  professes.  It 
is  true  that,  without  that  law,  the  Senate  would  not  have 
the  opportunity  of  passing  on  the  conduct  of  the  officers  who 


SPEECHES.  445 

may  be  renominated  under  it  ;  but  let  me  bring  the  Senator 
to  reflect  how  little  influence  that  fact  gives  to  the  Senate, 
compared  to  the  influence  which  the  President  acquires 
by  the  law  over  all  those  who  must  depend  on  him  under 
its  provisions,  for  a  renomination.  Let  him  reflect  how 
few  of  those  renominated  are  rejected  by  the  Senate, 
compared  to  those  whom  the  President  has  refused  to 
nominate  ;  and  how  little  influence  the  Senate  acquires,  or 
the  President  loses,  by  the  rejection  of  the  former.  Should 
the  Senate  reject  on  party  grounds,  it  has  no  power  to  fill 
the  place  of  the  person  rejected — that  depends  upon  the 
President.  What,  then,  is  the  fact  ?  The  Senate  makes 
an  enemy  without  acquiring  a  friend,  while  the  President  is 
sure  to  acquire  two  friends  without  making  an  enemy — the 
rejected  and  the  one  who  fills  his  place.  If  to  this  we  add, 
that  the  present  President  has  made  it  an  invariable  practice 
to  reward,  in  some  shape  or  other,  every  man  rejected  by  the 
Senate,  however  good  the  cause  for  rejection,  it  must  be  ob- 
vious that  the  apprehension  of  the  Senator  from  Tennessee, 
that  the  repeal  of  the  Four  Years'  Law  would  weaken  the 
Senate  and  strengthen  the  Executive,  is  without  foundation. 
He  may  dismiss  all  anxiety  on  that  head. 

But  it  is  further  objected  that  the  repeal  of  the  Four 
Years'  Law  would  destroy  the  principle  of  rotation  in  office, 
which  the  Senator  from  Maine  (Mr.  Shepley),  and  some 
others  on  the  same  side,  represent  as  the  very  basis  of  repub- 
lican institutions.  We  often,  said  Mr.  C.,  confound  things 
that  are  entirely  dissimilar,  by  not  making  the  proper  dis- 
tinction. I  will  not  undertake  to  inquire  now  whether  the 
principle  of  rotation,  as  applied  to  the  ordinary  ministerial 
officers  of  a  government,  may  not  be  favorable  to  popular  and 
free  institutions,  when  such  officers  are  chosen  by  the  people 
themselves.  It  certainly  would  have  a  tendency  to  cause 
those  who  desire  office,  when  the  choice  is  in  the  people,  to 
seek  their  favor  ;  but  certain  it  is,  that  in  a  Government 


446  SPEECHES 

where  the  Chief  Magistrate  has  the  filling  of  vacancies  instead 
of  the  people,  there  will  be  an  opposite  tendency — to  court 
the  favor  of  him  who  has  the  disposal  of  offices — and  this  for 
the  very  reason  that  when  the  choice  is  in  the  people  their 
favor  is  courted.  If  the  latter  has  a  popular  tendency,  it  is 
no  less  certain  that  the  former  must  have  a  contrary  one. 
I,  for  my  part,  must  say,  that,  according  to  my  conception, 
the  true  principle  is,  to  render  those  who  are  charged  with 
mere  ministerial  offices  secure  in  their  places,  so  long  as  they 
continue  to  discharge  their  duty  with  ability  and  integrity  ; 
and  I  would  no  more  permit  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  a 
country  to  displace  them  without  cause,  on  party  grounds, 
than  I  would  permit  him  to  divest  them  of  their  freeholds  : 
the  power  to  divest  them  of  the  one  is  calculated  to  make 
them  as  servile  and  dependent  as  the  power  to  divest  them 
of  the  other. 

I  have  now,  said  Mr.  C.,  concluded  what  I  intended  to 
say.  I  have  omitted  several  subjects  which  I  was  desirous 
of  discussing  connected  with  the  highly  important  question 
which  has  so  deeply  occupied  the  attention  of  the  Senate  ; 
but  the  session  is  so  near  a  close  that  I  feel  the  necessity  of 
brevity,  and  will  therefore  forego  what  I  would  otherwise 
say. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Bill  reported  by  the  Select  Committee  on 
Executive  Patronage,  delivered  in  the  Senate, 
February  13th,  1835. 

MR.  CALHOUN  said  :  This  is  not  the  first  time  that  the 
measure  now  under  consideration  has  been  before  the  Senate. 
It  was  introduced  eight  years  ago,  on  the  report  of  a  select 


SPEECHES.  447 

committee  raised  on  Executive  Patronage,  as  one  of  the 
measures  then  thought  necessary  to  curtail  what,  at  that 
time,  was  thought  to  be  the  excessive  patronage  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive. The  party  then  in  opposition,  and  now  in  power, 
then  pledged  themselves  to  the  community  that,  should  they 
be  elevated  to  power,  they  would  administer  the  Government 
on  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  report.  Mr.  C.  said,  that 
it  was  now  high  time  to  inquire  how  this  solemn  pledge, 
which,  in  his  opinion,  imposed  a  sacred  obligation,  has  been 
redeemed  ?  Has  the  plighted  faith  been  kept  which  the 
committee  gave  in  the  name  of  the  party  ?  Before  I  under- 
take to  answer  this  question,  it  may  be  proper  to  inquire — 
Who  constituted  that  committee,  and  what  is  the  position 
they  now  occupy  ?  The  chairman  was  Mr.  Benton,  now  a 
member  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  present  committee.  The 
name  of  Mr.  Macon,  then  a  Senator  from  North  Carolina,  so 
well  known  to  the  country,  stands  next ;  Mr.  Yan  Buren, 
now  Vice-President ;  Mr.  Dickerson,  now  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  ;  Mr.  Johnson,  now  a  member  of  the  House  from 
Kentucky  ;  Mr.  White,  then,  as  now,  Senator  from  Tennes- 
see ;  Mr.  Holmes  of  Maine  ;  Mr.  Hayne  of  South  Carolina ; 
Mr.  Findlay  of  Pennsylvania  ;  all,  at  the  time,  distinguished 
members  of  this  body. 

Such  was  the  committee,  which,  then  and  now,  stands  so 
high  in  the  confidence  of  the  party  now  in  power.  Hear 
what  their  report  says  upon  the  subject  of  Executive 
Patronage. 

[Here  an  extract  from  the  Eeport  was  read  as  follows :] 

"  To  be  able  to  show  to  the  Senate  a  full  and  perfect  view  of  the  power 
and  workings  of  Federal  patronage,  the  committee  addressed  a  note,  im- 
mediately after  they  were  charged  with  this  inquiry,  to  each  of  the  de- 
partments, and  to  the  Postmaster-General,  requesting  to  be  informed  of 
the  whole  number  of  persons  employed,  and  the  whole  amount  of  money 
paid  out,  under  the  direction  of  their  respective  departments  1  The  an- 
swers received  are  herewith  submitted,  and  made  part  of  this  report. 


448  SPEECHES. 

With  the  '  Blue  Book,'  they  will  discover  enough  to  show  that  the  pre- 
dictions of  those  who  were  not  blind  to  the  defects  of  the  constitution,  are 
ready  to  be  realized ;  that  the  power  and  influence  of  Federal  patronage, 
contrary  to  the  argument  in  the  'Federalist,'  is  an  overmatch  for  the 
power  and  influence  of  State  patronage ;  that  its  workings  will  contami- 
nate the  purity  of  all  elections,  and  enable  the  Federal  Government, 
eventually,  to  govern  throughout  the  States,  as  effectually  as  if  they  were 
so  many  provinces  of  one  vast  empire. 

"  The  whole  of  this  great  power  will  centre  in  the  President.  The 
King  of  England  is  the  '  fountain  of  honor ; '  the  President  of  the  United 
States  is  the  source  of  patronage.  He  presides  over  the  entire  system  of 
Federal  appointments,  jobs,  and  contracts.  He  has  'power'  over  the 
'  support '  of  the  individuals  who  administer  the  system.  He  makes  and 
unmakes  them.  He  chooses  from  the  circle  of  his  friends  and  supporters 
and  may  dismiss  them ;  and,  upon  all  the  principles  of  human  actions, 
will  dismiss  them,  as  often  as  they  disappoint  his  expectations.  Hia 
spirit  will  animate  their  actions  in  all  the  elections  to  State  and  Federal 
offices.  There  may  be  exceptions;  but  the  truth  of  a  general  rule  is 
proved  by  the  exception.  The  intended  check  and  control  of  the  Senate, 
without  new  constitutional  or  statutory  provisions,  will  cease  to  operate. 
Patronage  will  penetrate  this  body,  subdue  its  capacity  of  resistance, 
chain  it  to  the  car  of  power,  and  enable  the  President  to  rule  as  easily, 
and  much  more  securely  with,  than  without  the  nominal  check  of  the 
Senate.  If  the  President  was  himself  jhe  officer  of  the  people,  elected  by 
them,  and  responsible  to  them,  there  would  be  less  danger  from  this  con- 
centration of  all  power  in  his  hands ;  but  it  is  the  business  of  statesmen  to 
act  upon  things  as  they  are,  not  as  they  would  wish  them  to  be.  "We 
must  then  look  forward  to  the  time  when  the  public  revenue  will  be 
doubled  ;  when  the  civil  and  military  officers  of  the  Federal  Government 
will  be  quadrupled ;  when  its  influence  over  individuals  will  be  multiplied 
to  an  indefinite  extent ;  when  the  nomination  by  the  President  can  carry 
any  man  through  the  Senate,  and  his  recommendation  can  carry  any 
measure  through  the  two  Houses  of  Congress;  when  the  principle  of 
public  action  will  be  open  and  avowed ;  the  President  wants  my  vote, 
and  I  want  his  patronage  ;  I  will  vote  as  he  wishes,  and  he  will  give 
me  the  office  I  wish  for.  What  will  this  be,  but  the  government  of  one 
man  ?  and  what  is  the  government  of  one  man,  but  a  monarchy  ?  Names 
are  nothing.  The  nature  of  a  thing  is  in  its  substance,  and  the  name  soon 
accommodates  itself  to  the  substance.  The  first  Roman  Emperor  was 
styled  Emperor  of  the  Republic,  and  the  last  French  Emperor  took  the 
same  title ;  and  their  respective  countries  were  just  as  essentially  mo- 
narchical before,  as  after  the  assumption  of  these  titles.  It  cannot  be 


SPEECHES.  449 

denied  or  dissembled  but  that  the  Federal  Government  gravitates  to  the 
same  point,  and  that  the  election  of  the  Executive  by  the  Legislature 
quickens  the  impulsion. 

'•'  Those  who  make  the  President  must  support  him.  Their  political 
fate  becomes  identified,  and  they  must  stand  or  fall  together.  Right  or 
wrong,  they  must  support  him ;  and  if  he  is  made  contrary  to  the  will  of 
the  people,  he  must  be  supported  not  only  by  votes  and  speeches,  but  by 
arms.  A  violent  and  forced  state  of  things  will  ensue ;  individual  com- 
bats will  take  place ;  and  the  combats  of  individuals  will  be  the  forerun- 
ner to  general  engagements.  The  array  of  man  against  man  will  be  the 
prelude  to  the  array  of  army  against  army,  and  of  State  against  State. 
Such  is  the  law  of  nature ;  and  it  is  equally  in  vain  for  one  set  of  men  to 
claim  an  exemption  from  its  operation,  as  it  would  be  for  any  other  set  to 
suppose  that,  under  the  same  circumstances,  they  would  not  act  in  the 
same  manner.  The  natural  remedy  for  all  these  evils,  would  be  to  place 
the  election  of  President  in  the  hands  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
He  would  then  have  a  power  to  support  him,  which  would  be  as  able,  as 
willing  to  aid  him  when  he  was  himself  supporting  the  interests  of  the 
country,  as  they  would  be  to  put  him  down  when  he  should  neglect  or 
oppose  those  interests.  Your  committee,  looking  at  the  present  mode  of 
electing  the  President  as  the  principal  source  of  all  this  evil,  have  com- 
menced their  labors  at  the  beginning  of  this  session,  by  recommending  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution  in  that  essential  and  vital  particular ;  but 
in  this,  as  in  many  other  things,  they  find  the  greatest  difficulty  to  be  in  the 
first  step.  The  committee  recommend  the  amendment,  but  the  people 
cannot  act  upon  it  until  Congress  shall  'propose'  it,  and  peradventure 
Congress  will  not  '  propose '  it  to  them  at  all. 

"  It  is  no  longer  true  that  the  President,  in  dealing  out  offices  to  Mem- 
bers of  Congress,  will  be  limited,  as  supposed  in  the  Federalist,  to  the  in- 
considerable number  of  places  which  may  become  vacant  by  the  ordinary 
casualties  of  deaths  and  resignations  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  may  now  draw, 
for  that  purpose,  upon  the  entire  fund  of  the  Executive  patronage.  Con- 
struction and  legislation  have  accomplished  this  change.  In  the  very  first 
year  of  the  constitution,  a  construction  was  put  upon  that  instrument 
which  enabled  the  President  to  create  as  many  vacancies  as  he  pleased, 
and  at  any  moment  that  he  thought  proper.  This  was  effected  by  yield- 
ing to  him  the  kingly  prerogative  of  dismissing  officers  without  the  for- 
mality of  a  trial.  The  authors  of  the  Federalist  had  not  foreseen  this  con- 
struction ;  so  far  from  it,  they  had  asserted  the  contrary,  and,  arguing 
logically  from  the  premises.  :  that  the  dismissing  power  was  appurte- 
nant to  the  appointing  power,"  they  had  maintained,  in  No.  77  of  that 
standard  work,  that,  as  the  consent  of  the  Senate  was  necessary  to  the 
VOL.  H. — 29 


450  SPEECHES. 

appointment  of  an  officer,  so  the  consent  of  the  same  body  would  be 
equally  necessary  to  his  dismission  from  office.  But  this  construction  was 
overruled  by  the  first  Congress  which  was  formed  under  the  constitu- 
tion ;  the  power  of  dismission  from  office  was  abandoned  to  the  Presi- 
dent alone,  and,  with  the  acquisition  of  this  prerogative  alone,  the  power 
and  patronage  of  the  Presidential  office  was  instantly  increased  to  an  in- 
definite extent,  and  the  argument  of  the  Federalist  against  the  capacity  of 
the  President,  to  corrupt  the  Members  of  Congress,  founded  upon  the 
small  number  of  places  which  he  could  use  for  that  purpose,  was  totally 
overthrown.  So  much  for  construction.  Now  for  the  effects  of  legisla- 
tion ;  and  without  going  into  an  enumeration  of  statutes  which  unneces- 
sarily increase  the  Executive  patronage,  the  Four  Years'  Appointment  Law 
will  alone  be  mentioned ;  for  this  single  act,  by  vacating  almost  the  entire 
civil  list,  once  in  every  period  of  a  presidential  term  of  service,  places  more 
offices  at  the  command  of  the  President  than  were  known  to  the  constitu- 
tion at  the  time  of  its  adoption,  and  is,  of  itself  amply  sufficient  to  over- 
throw the  whole  of  the  argument  which  was  used  in  the  Federalist." 

It  is  impossible,  said  Mr.  C.,  to  read  this  report,  which 
denounces  in  such  unqualified  terms  the  excess  and  the 
abuses  of  patronage  at  that  time,  without  being  struck  with 
'  the  deplorable  change  which  a  few  short  years  have  wrought 
in  the  character  of  our  country.  Then  we  were  sensitive  in 
all  that  related  to  our  liberty  ;  and  jealous  of  patronage  and 
governmental  influence  :  so  much  so,  that  a  few  inconsiderable 
removals,  three  or  four  printers,  roused  the  indignation  of  the 
whole  country — events  which  would  now  pass  unnoticed.  We 
,ve  grown  insensible,  become  callous  and  stupid. 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  question  which  I  have  asked.  How 
has  the  plighted  faith  of  the  party  been  fulfilled  ?  Have  the 
abuses  then  denounced  been  corrected  ?  Has  the  Four  Years' 
Law  been  repealed  ?  Has  the  election  of  the  President  been 
given  to  the  people  ?  Has  the  exercise  of  the  dismissing 
power  by  the  President,  which  was  then  pronounced  to  be  a 
dangerous  violation  of  the  constitution,  been  restored  to  Con- 
gress ?  All  those  pledges  have  been  forgotten.  Not  one 
has  been  fulfilled.  And  what  justification,  I  ask,  is  offered 
for  so  gross  a  violation  of  faith  ?  None  is  even  attempted — 


SPEECHES.  451 

the  delinquency  is  acknowledged  ;  and  the  only  effort  which 
the  Senator  from  Missouri  has  made  to  defend  his  own  con- 
duct, and  that  of  the  administration,  in  adopting  the  practice 
which  he  then  denounced,  is  on  the  plea  of  retaliation.  He 
says  that  he  has  been  fourteen  years  a  member  of  the  Senate  ; 
and  that,  during  the  first  seven,  no  friend  of  his  had  received 
the  favor  of  the  Government ;  and  contends  that  it  became 
necessary  to  dismiss  those  in  office,  to  make  room  for  others 
who  had  been,  for  so  long  a  time,  beyond  the  circle  of  Exe- 
cutive favor.  What,  Mr.  C.  asked,  is  the  principle,  when 
correctly  understood,  on  which  this  defence  rests  ?  It  assumes 
that  retaliation  is  a  principle  in  its  nature  so  sacred,  that  it 
justifies  the  violation  of  the  constitution,  the  breach  of 
plighted  faith,  and  the  subversion  of  principles,  the  observ- 
ance of  which  had  been  declared  to  be  essential  to  the  liberty 
of  the  country.  The  avowal  of  such  a  principle  may  be 
justified  at  this  time  by  interested  partisans  ;  but  the  time 
must  arrive,  when  a  more  impartial  tribunal  will  regard  it  in 
a  far  different  light,  and  pronounce  that  sentence  which 
violated  faith  and  broken  pledges  deserve.  Mr.  C.  said,  the 
bill  now  before  the  Senate  affords  an  opportunity  to  the 
dominant  party  to  redeem  its  pledges,  as  late  as  it  is,  and  to 
avert,  at  least  in  part,  that  just  denunciation  which  an  im- 
partial posterity  will  otherwise  most  certainly  pronounce  on 
them.  He  hoped  that  they  would  embrace  the  opportunity, 
and  thereby  prove  that,  in  expelling  the  former  administra- 
tion they  were  not  merely  acting  a  part,  and  that  the  solemn 
pledges  and  promises  then  .given  were  not  electioneering 
tricks,  devoid  of  sincerity  and  truth.  I  consider  it,  said  Mr. 
C.,  as  an  evidence  of  that  deep  degeneracy,  which  precedes 
the  downfall  of  a  republic,  when  those  elevated  to  power, 
forget  the  promises  on  which  they  were  elevated  ;  the  certain 
effect  of  which  is  to  make  an  impression  on  the  public  mind, 
that  all  is  juggling  and  tricky  in  politics — and  to  create  an 


452  SPEECHES. 

indifference  to  political  straggles,  highly  favorable  to  the 
growth  of  despotic  power. 

[Mr.  Benton  here  rose  and  made  some  remarks  in  defence  of  him- 
self and  the  administration  ;  after  which] — 

/  Mr.  Calhoun  proceeded  to  show,  that  the  prerogative  of 
turning  out  of  office,  committed,  without  limitation  to  the 
President,  is  a  means  of  increasing  at  once  the  Executive 
power  to  a  dangerous  and  ruinous  extent ;  rendering  him  the 
head  of  a  party,  not  founded  on  principles,  but  resting  on 
*"  the  worst  of  all  bases,  that  of  personal  interest  and  fear. 
/*  Having  shown  that  the  present  administration  rose  to 
power  by  the  hopes  excited,  and  professions  held  out  against 
the  very  abuses  which  now  had  grown  to  so  alarming  an 
excess,  Mr.  Calhoun  deplored,  in  energetic  terms,  the  falsifi- 
cation of  those  hopes ;  urging  the  fatal  effects  which  are 
produced,  when  the  solemn  promises  and  plighted  faith  of 
men  are  broken,  and  when  the  people  are  led  to  believe  that 
political  truth  is  extinguished,  and  the  most  solemn  engage- 
ments are  merely  made  as  stepping  stones  to  power,  and  as 
instruments  of  electioneering. 

[Mr.  Benton  here  again  rose,  and  in  his  usual  strain  of  rude  and 
vulgar  insolence,  interrupted  the  debate.  He  was  called  to  order  by 
Mr.  Poindexter  of  Mississippi,  and  after  some  time  spent  in  discussing 
the  point,  Mr.  Calhoun  rose  and  said  :] 

I  rise  to  express  my  surprise  at  the  course  pursued  by  the 
member  from  Missouri  (Col.  Benton)  who  has  just  taken 
his  seat.  He  is  a  member  of  the  committee,  and  regularly 
attended  its  meetings.  While  the  report  was  before  the 
committee  for  consideration,  he  sat  in  silence,  without  whis- 
pering the  objections  now  urged  with  so  much  violence,  and 
in  language  so  unwarranted.  I  had  not  intended  to  go  into 
the  report  while  the  present  bill  was  under  consideration. 
It  met  the  approbation  of  the  whole  committee,  including 


SPEECHES.  453 

that  of  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  and  I  had  a  right  to  ex- 
pect, at  least  as  far  as  he  was  concerned,  that  it  would  pass 
without  opposition.  Under  this  impression  I  had  proposed 
to  myself  to  delay  the  discussion  on  the  merits  of  the  report, 
till  the  resolution  to  amend  the  constitution,  from  which  the 
member  dissented,  came  under  consideration  ;  when  an  op- 
portunity would  be  afforded  to  repel  his  broad  and  unfounded 
assertions  and  fallacious  conclusions,  and  to  establish  the 
correctness  of  the  report  on  all  the  points  on  which  it  had 
been  assailed  ;  but  the  course  pursued  by  the  Senator  compels 
me  to  repel  his  assertions  without  further  delay. 

When  the  subject  of  printing  the  report  was  under  con- 
sideration a  few  days  since,  he  asserted,  in  the  boldest  man- 
ner, that  the  estimate  of  the  committee  in  relation  to  the 
surplus  revenue  was  so  wild,  that  wild  was  a  term  too  mod- 
erate ;  and  that  none  less  strong  than  "  hallucination  "  could 
be  applied.  I  then  repelled  his  objections  in  a  manner  which 
I  trust  was  satisfactory  to  every  one  capable  of  estimating 
the  force  of  just  reasoning  ;  but  in  order  that  there  might 
not  be  a  shadow  of  doubt  on  a  point  of  so  much  importance, 
I  have  since  re-examined  the  subject,  and  now  pronounce, 
without  the  fear  of  contradiction,  that  on  the  Senator's  own 
premises,  the  estimate  of  the  surplus,  as  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee, is  correct — notwithstanding  the  outrageous  extrava- 
gance of  his  assertions.  The  Senator  did  not  venture  any 
argument  of  his  own  to  rebut  the  conclusion  of  the  commit- 
tee ;  but,  with  that  deference  to  power  which  is  one  of  the 
characteristics  of  those  with  whom  he  is  politically  associa- 
ted, he  relied  solely  upon  the  statement  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  furnished  in  his  annual  report.  Now,  said  Mr. 
C.,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  estimates  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
income  of  the  current  year,  instead  of  supporting  the  un- 
warranted assertions  of  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  coincide 
remarkably  with  the  estimate  of  the  committee  ;  which  shows 
with  what  disregard  to  the  state  of  the  facts  the  Senator  ven- 


454  SPEECHES. 

tures  his  assertions,  though  uttered  with  so  much  confidence. 
But  that  there  may  be  no  further  question  on  this  point,  I 
will  turn  to  the  report  of  the  Secretary  itself,  and  compare 
in  detail  his  estimate  with  that  submitted  by  the  committee. 
Beginning,  then,  with  the  customs,  which  is  the  principal 
source  of  our  revenue,  the  Secretary  estimates  the  income 
from  this  source  at  sixteen  millions  of  dollars  ;  the  commit- 
tee at  sixteen  millions  three  hundred  and  seventy  thousand 
dollars  ;  making  a  difference  of  but  three  hundred  and  sev- 
enty thousand  dollars — a  very  striking  coincidence,  consider- 
ing that  the  calculations  rest  upon  grounds  so  essentially  dif- 
ferent. The  Secretary  assumes  as  his  basis  the  income  from 
the  customs  for  the  last  year,  without  taking  into  the  esti- 
mate that  a  very  considerable  portion  of  the  receipts  from 
that  source  last  year  were  derived  from  duties  accruing  the 
preceding  year,  when  the  rates  were  much  higher  than  they 
are  now  ;  but  to  balance  this  error,  he  omits  to  take  into  the 
account  the  diminution  of  the  imports  of  articles  subject  to 
duty,  in  consequence  of  the  disturbed  state  of  the  currency, 
which  two  sums  nearly  balance  each  other  ;  and  thus,  by  two 
errors  of  an  opposite  character,  and  of  nearly  equal  magni- 
tude, he  has  accidentally  fallen  upon  the  truth. 

As  to  the  next  greatest  source  of  our  revenue,  the  public 
lands,  the  estimates  of  the  Secretary  and  the  committee  ex- 
actly coincide  ;  both  placing  it  at  three  millions  five  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars.  The  estimates  of  the  remaining  re- 
sources are  placed  by  the  Secretary  at  $500,070  ;  by  the 
committee  at  $450,000 ;  making  a  difference  of  $50,070 
only.  Adding  these  several  items  on  both  sides,  the  aggre- 
gate of  the  Secretary  amounts  to  $20,000,070  ;  and  that  of 
the  committee  to  $20,320,000  ;  making  a  difference  of  but 
$319,930.  So  much  for  the  income.  As  to  the  expendi- 
ture, I  am  not  ignorant  that  the  Secretary  estimates  it  at 
$19,683,541 — making  a  difference  between  that  and  his  esti- 
mate of  the  income,  of  $316,529.  The  committee,  on  the 


SPEECHES.  455 

contrary,  make  no  estimate  of  the  actual  expenditure.  Its 
object  was  not  to  estimate  the  expenditure  on  the  present 
scale,  which  is  admitted  by  the  Senator  himself  to  be  enor- 
mous, profuse,  and  profligate.  On  the  contrary,  the  object 
of  the  committee  was  to  ascertain  to  what  these  expenditures 
might  safely  be  reduced,  consistently  with  the  just  efficiency 
of  the  Government.  For  this  purpose,  they  selected  the  year 
1823  as  the  basis  on  which  to  rest  their  estimate — a  year 
which  the  Senator  at  that  time,  and  those  with  whom  he  then 
acted,  denounced  as  profuse  and  extravagant  (Mr.  Benton  as- 
sented), and  which  he  even  now  has  the  assurance  to  allude 
to  as  extravagant,  and  attempts  to  hold  me  responsible  as 
its  author.  Well,  then,  I  have  taken  this  extravagant  pe- 
riod. I  have  allowed  twenty  per  cent,  upon  its  expenditure — 
which  so  many  who  now  support  the  present  administration, 
then  pronounced  as  so  extravagant.  Yes,  twenty  per  cent, 
on  the  then  expenditure  on  fortifications — on  internal  im- 
provements— on  pensions,  and  every  other  item,  all  of  which 
the  Senator  has  pronounced  to  have  been  so  extravagant  at 
that  period,  that  even  now  he  holds  the  then  administration 
responsible,  in  his  zeal  to  defend  the  present.  I  have  gone 
further.  I  have  added  the  actual  increase  of  pensions,  of 
which  he  now  complains  so  much,  and  to  which  he  mainly 
attributes  the  present  great  increase  of  expenditure,  to  the 
twenty  per  cent.,  and  find  that,  with  all  these  heavy  ad- 
ditions, the  expenditure  ought  not,  at  present,  to  exceed 
$12,060,412  per  annum  for  the  next  seven  years ;  which, 
deducted  from  the  estimate  of  the  receipts  of  the  present 
year,  as  given  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  on 
which  the  Senator  relies  for  his  uncourteous  and  extravagant 
assertions,  leaves  a  balance  of  $7,939,658.  If  we  allow  for 
the  surplus  revenue  now  in  the  treasury,  deducting  two 
millions  for  contingent  expense,  and  the  Government  por- 
tion of  the  United  States  Bank  stock — making  together 
$13,039,381 — and  distribute  this  sum  equally  in  the  next 


456  SPEECHES. 

seven  years,  it  would  give  $1,862,768  to  each  year.'  Add 
this  to  the  surplus  already  obtained,  and  it  would  give  a  balance 
of  upwards  of  nine  millions,  as  estimated  by  the  committee. 

Thus,  said  Mr.  C.,  the  very  authority  which  the  Senator 
resorts  to,  and  on  the  strength  of  which  he  has  ventured  to 
utter  his  bold  and  lawless  denunciations  of  the  report,  sus- 
tains it  in  a  most  remarkable  manner,  and  furnishes  a  strik- 
ing proof  of  the  carelessness  and  inattention  of  the  Senator 
in  his  assumptions  and  his  arguments. 

Nature,  said  Mr.  C.,  has  bestowed  her  gifts  very  unequal- 
ly and  partially  upon  men.  To  some  she  has  given  one  qual- 
ity, and  to  others  another.  She  has  certainly  been  profuse 
of  her  gifts  to  the  Senator  from  Missouri  (Mr.  Benton),  in 
one  particular  ;  she  has  endowed  him,  above  all  men,  with 
boldness — yes,  boldness  of  assertion  ;  but  I  must  say  she  has 
been  more  niggard  in  the  power  of  ratiocination.  In  the  face 
of  this  confirmation  of  the  estimate  of  the  committee,  by  his 
own  authority,  he  has  ventured  to  assail  the  correctness  of 
the  report  in  the  most  unqualified  manner,  and  bellowed  out 
that  the  estimate  was  extravagant — a  fallacy — hallucination  ! 

He  has,  said  Mr.  C.,  not  thought  proper  to  repeat  these 
offensive  epithets  in  the  speech  which  he  has  just  delivered  ; 
but  in  lieu  of  them  he  tells  us  that  the  report  is  deceptive — 
fallacious  ;  and  that,  while  pretending  to  moderation  but  thin- 
ly veiled,  it  partakes  of  the  most  bitter  party  character  ;  and 
in  the  same  breath  with  which  he  makes  these  charges,  he 
alleges,  as  a  serious  charge  against  the  committee,  that  they 
did  not  go  into  an  inquiry  of  the  cause  of  the  enormous  in- 
crease of  patronage  and  expenditure,  which  the  Senator  can- 
not deny.  I  repel,  said  Mr.  C.,  the  charges  of  the  Senator 
as  destitute  of  any  foundation,  and  affirm  that  the  report  is 
as  free  from  party. spirit  as  it  is  possible  for  a  paper  of  this 
description  to  be,  consistently  with  truth  and  a  regard  to 
duty.  The  Senate  charged  the  committee,  in  its  resolution, 
to  inquire  into  the  extent  of  Executive  patronage — its  great 


SPEECHES.  457 

increase  of  late — and  the  expediency  and  practicability  of  re- 
ducing it ;  and  how  could  the  committee  perform  this  duty 
without  speaking  freely  of  facts  as  they  exist  ?  How  could 
they  inform  the  people  of  these  States  of  the  extent  of  Ex- 
ecutive patronage,  and  the  cause  of  its  great  increase  of  late,  if 
they  had  said  less  than  they  have  ?  The  truth  is,  the  com- 
mittee looked  to  the  facts,  and  to  the  facts  only  ;  and  treated 
of  them,  as  much  as  possible,  separate  from  all  personal  or 
party  considerations  ;  and  yet  the  Senator  from  Missouri, 
while  he  charges  the  committee  with  giving  a  party  charac- 
ter to  the  report,  with  a  strange  inconsistency  and  confusion 
of  ideas,  blames  them  for  not  inquiring  into  the  fact  of  who 
were  the  authors  of  the  present  extravagant  expenditure  and 
enormous  patronage,  which  he  does  not  pretend  to  deny. 
Can  the  Senator  be  so  blind  as  not  to  see  that  it  was  impos- 
sible to  discuss  that  point  without  giving  a  violent  party 
character  to  the  report,  which  would  have  ended  in  prevent- 
ing the  possibility  of  applying  a  remedy  to  what  all  (and  he 
with  others)  admit  to  be  a  deep  and  dangerous  disease  ?  I 
must  tell  the  Senator  what,  as  a  member,  he  ought  to  know, 
that  the  committee  were  actuated  by  far  higher  and  more 
patriotic  considerations.  They  were  more  studious  of  devis- 
ing a  remedy  to  arrest  the  dangerous  progress  of  events,  than 
of  giving  a  party  character  to  their  proceedings,  which,  how- 
ever it  might  bear  upon  those  in  power,  could  not  but  defeat 
the  object  which  the  Senate  had  in  view  in  instituting  the 
inquiry.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  committee  did  not  in- 
quire who  were  the  authors  of  the  present  state  of  things. 
They  were  not  deterred,  as  the  Senator  seems  to  insinuate,  by 
the  apprehension  that  the  inquiry  would  implicate  others  as 
the  authors  of  the  present  diseased  condition  of  the  country, 
and  exempt  the  administration.  The  result  of  such  an  in- 
quiry, so  far  from  acquitting,  would  deeply  implicate  the  ad- 
ministration in  all  the  extravagant  expenditures  to  which  the 
Senator  alludes — internal  improvements,  pensions,  removal  of 


458  SPEECHES, 

the  Indians,  and  those  connected  with  the  tariff,  as  I  am 
prepared  to  show,  whenever  a  suitable  opportunity  offers. 
But  before  I  quit  this  part  of  the  subject,  let  me  correct  an 
error,  into  which  it  would  seem  strange  that  the  Senator 
should  have  fallen.  He  tells  us,  with  his  usual  confidence, 
that  Andrew  Jackson  was  the  author  of  the  plan  of  re- 
moving the  Indians  to  the  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  be- 
stows upon  him  all  the  honor  and  the  glory,  and  calls  upon 
the  State  of  Mississippi  and  the  new  States  to  pay  the  debt 
of  gratitude  which  they  owe  him  as  the  author  of  this  noble 
policy.  Is  it  possible  that  the  Senator  could  have  been  igno- 
rant that  it  was  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  not  the  object  of  his 
adoration,  who  was  the  real  author  ?  Can  he  be  ignorant 
that  Andrew  Jackson  himself  (as  he  calls  the  President),  in 
the  treaty  with  the  Cherokees,  in  1817,  acknowledges  this 
fact  ?  To  come  to  a  later  period,  is  he  ignorant  that  Mr. 
Monroe  recommended,  in  one  of  his  messages,  in  the  fullest 
and  most  explicit  manner,  the  adoption  of  the  policy  of  the 
removal  of  all  the  Indian  tribes  within  our  limits  on  the  east 
of  the  Mississippi,  to  the  west  of  that  river  ?  and  that  the 
message  of  Mr.  Monroe  was  founded  on  a  report  of  which  I 
was  the  author,  as  Secretary  of  War  ?  How,  with  all  these 
facts  before  him,  could  the  Senator  pronounce,  as  he  has,  that 
the  present  President  was  the  author  of  the  system,  and 
that,  as  such,  he  ought  to  have  bestowed  upon  him  exclu- 
sively whatever  honor  and  gratitude  may  belong  to  it  ?  Let 
me  tell  the  Senator,  that  he  who  undertakes  to  correct  the 
errors  of  others,  ought  to  be  very  cautious  of  committing 
errors  himself. 

But  it  seems  that  the  committee  have  committed  an  enor- 
mous error  in  the  statement  of  the  expenditure  which  they 
have  given  for  the  ten  years  from  1823  to  1833.  The  Sen- 
ator says  that  they  have  entirely  overlooked  the  extraordinary 
expenditure  for  the  last  of  these  years.  A  very  simple  an- 
swer will  set  him  right.  The  object  of  the  committee  as 


SPEECHES.  459 

the  statement  itself  on  its  face  purports  to  be,  is  to  exhibit 
the  amount  of  the  expenditures  only  for  the  period  in  ques- 
tion, without  inquiring  into  their  nature  and  character,  or  for 
what  reason  or  objects  they  were  incurred,  with  the  view  of 
showing  that  there  was  a  regular  progression  and  great  in- 
crease of  the  expenditures  of  late.  The  statement  is  taken 
from  the  official  returns  of  the  expenditure  during  the  ten 
years,  and  in  addition  to  which  the  report  gives  the  estimat- 
ed expenditure  for  1834,  and  the  annual  report  of  the  Se- 
cretary of  the  Treasury  gives  the  estimate  of  the  expendi- 
ture of  the  current  year  :  so  that  the  committee  could  have 
had  no  object  in  selecting  1833  with  a  view  of  exhibiting  the 
increase  to  be  greater  than  it  really  is.  It  was  selected  sim- 
ply because  it  is  the  last  year  of  which  we  have  official  and 
certain  returns  of  the  expenditures — those  of  1834  and  1835 
being  as  yet  in  some  degree  uncertain  and  conjectural.  Now, 
said  Mr.  C.,  if  the  expenditure  of  1833  gives  us  so  unfair  a 
result ;  if,  as  the  Senator  contends,  it  was  swelled  so  enor- 
mously by  accidental  circumstances,  that  seven  millions  ought 
to  be  deducted  to  obtain  the  true  result,  what  will  he  say  to 
the  estimated  expenditure  of  1834  and  1835,  which  are  but 
little  short  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars  for  each  year  ?  Will 
he  pretend  to  say  that  any  extraordinary  occurrences  affect- 
ed the  disbursements  of  the  last  year,  or  that  those  of  the 
present,  as  estimated  by  the  Secretary,  were  not  based  on  the 
usual  items  of  expenditure  ?  Let  us  then  lay  aside  the 
year  1833,  to  which  the  Senator  so  strenuously  objects  as 
being  a  year  of  extraordinary  disbursements,  and  take  that 
of  the  last  or  present  year,  the  expenditure  of  which,  as  I 
have  stated,  is  estimated  at  nearly  twenty  millions  of  dol- 
lars, and  how  much  will  the  Senator  gain  by  comparing  either 
of  those  years  with  1823  instead  of  1833,  to  which  he  ob- 
jects. He  will  find,  on  comparison,  that  the  expenditures  of 
1823,  compared  with  the  estimates  of  this  and  the  last  year, 
are  less  than  one  half ;  and  how  will  he,  who  in  1826  condemn- 


460  SPEECHES. 

ed  the  comparatively  moderate  expenditure  of  that  period, 
undertake  now  to  justify  this  enormous  increase  since — an 
increase  which  has  occurred  mainly  under  this  reform  admin- 
istration, of  which  the  Senator  is  one  of  the  warmest  and 
most  unqualified  supporters.  But  let  us  turn  and  examine 
the  items  of  1833,  to  which  the  Senator  objects  as  being  im- 
properly charged  upon  that  year. 

First,  the  Black  Hawk  war,  to  which  he  charges  nine 
hundred  thousand  dollars.  Now,  sir,  said  Mr.  C.,  if  I  am 
not  greatly  mistaken,  it  was  charged  on  this  floor  by  a  gentle- 
man, a  friend  of  the  administration,  well  acquainted  with 
that  petty  contest,  that  it  originated  in  the  misconduct  of 
the  officers  and  agents  of  the  government ;  and  might  easily 
have  been  prevented  if  the  complaints  of  the  Indians  had 
not  been  improperly  neglected  by  those  whose  duty  it  was  to 
attend  to  them.  The  Senator  then  tells  us  that  there  were 
extraordinary  Indian  treaties  in  that  year,  and  large  sums  paid 
for  the  removal  and  subsistence  of  the  Indians — which  to- 
gether amounted  to  more  than  one  million  of  dollars.  I  cannot, 
said  Mr.  C.,  admit  this  deduction.  Of  the  present  extrava- 
gant and  unreasonable  disbursements,  there  are  none  more 
reckless  and  profuse  than  those  for  holding  Indian  treaties, 
purchasing  Indian  lands  and  removing  Indians — which  exceed 
many  fold  what  has  heretofore  been  usual ;  and  I  firmly 
believe  have  been  the  subject  of  as  much,  if  not  more  abuse 
and  corruption,  than  the  post-office  department. 

The  Senator  next  deducts  the  expenditure  under  the  pen- 
sion act  of  1832,  which  he  denominates  loose  and  wild,  but 
which  he  takes  care  to  charge  to  the  credit  of  Congress.  I 
will  not,  said  Mr.  C.,  permit  the  Senator  to  shift  the  respon- 
sibility from  the  shoulders  of  the  administration.  It  is  not 
to  be  tolerated  that,  those  who  expelled  a  former  administra- 
tion because  of  its  extravagance,  shall  now,  when  the  admin- 
istration thus  brought  into  power  proves  to  be  doubly  so,  lay 
the  blame  upon  Congress  instead  of  taking  it  to  themselves. 


SPEECHES.  46] 

I  would  ask  the  Senator,  when  he  drew  his  report  in  1826 
and  denounced  the  then  administration  in  such  severe  and 
unqualified  terms  for  their  extravagance,  whether  every  item 
of  expenditure  at  that  time  had  not  been  authorized  by  Con- 
gress ?  and  with  what  semblance  of  justice  could  he  then 
transfer  the  blame  from  Congress  to  the  administration,  and 
now,  under  precisely  similar  circumstances,  from  the  admin- 
istration to  Congress  ?    He,  and  those  who  are  now  in  power, 
have  reaped  the  fruit — and  as  they  obtained  power  by  holding 
others  responsible,  so  it  is  just  that  they  should,  in  turn,  be 
held  responsible.     I  go  further.     I  maintain  as  a  sound  ruley 
that  every  administration,  unless  it  be  in  a  minority  in  both\ 
Houses,  ought,  upon  every  principle  of  justice  and  policy,  to    y 
be  held  responsible  ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  striking  eviden- / 
ces  of  the  diseased  and  corrupt  state  of  the  present  tunes/ 
that  such  is  not  the  fact.  Has  not  the  present  administration^ 
had,  at  all  times,  a  majority  either  in  this  or  the  other  House  ?   \ 
and  has  not  the  President  freely  exercised  his  veto  whenever  / 
any  party  object  was  to  be  effected  ?     Why  then  has  this 
appropriation,  which  the  Senator  designates  as  so  extravagant 
and  improper,  been  permitted  to  pass  ?     Why  was  it  not  de- 
feated in  the  House  of  Representatives,  where  the  adminis- 
tration had  a  settled  majority,  or  arrested  by  the  President's 
veto  ?     I  will  answer  these  questions.     It  is  because  the  adX 
ministration  has  not  thought  proper  to  make  either  this,  or 
any  other  question  of  principle  or  policy,  a  party  question. 
A  member  may  vote  on  any  question  of  the  kind  for  or 
against,  and  be  still  a  good  Jackson  man.     He  may  be  for 
or  against  internal  improvements — for  or  against  the  tariff — 
for  or  against  this  or  that  expenditure — for  or  against  the 
Bank,  without  forfeiting  his  party  character,  provided  always 
and  nevertheless,  he  shall  submit  to  party  discipline  and  sus-/ 
tain  the  party  candidates  for  office.     This  is  the  only  coheA 
sive  principle  ;  this  is  the  only  subject  deemed  of  sufficient 
importance  to  be  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  party  question. 


462  SPEECHES. 

A.11  others,  however  important  in  themselves  ;  however  sa- 
cred the  principle  involved  ;  however  essential  the  measure 
to  the  public  prosperity,  are  all,  it  seems,  too  insignificant 
to  be  made  party  questions.  They  are  all  left  open  ques- 
tions, in  reference  to  which  the  faithful  may  take  either 
side.  Yes,  even  the  Bank  itself  is  not  a  party  question — of 
which  we  have  a  most  striking  illustration  in  the  fact  that 
General  Jackson  bestowed  the  highest  gift  in  his  power  on  a 
Senator  (Mr.  Forsyth),  who  had  openly,  on  this  floor,  in  the 
very  heat  of  the  controversy,  avowed  himself  a  Bank  man — 
while  other  Senators  who  were  openly  opposed  to  the  institu- 
tion were  denounced  ;  thus  furnishing  a  most  striking  illus- 
/  tration  of  the  truth  of  what  I  have  asserted,  that  the  only 
cohesive  principle  which  binds  together  the  powerful  party 
rallied  under  the  name  of  General  Jackson,  is  official  patron- 
Age.  Their  object  is  to  get  and  to  hold  office  ;  and  their  lead- 
Xing  political  maxim,  openly  avowed  on  this  floor  by  one  of 
/  the  former  Senators  from  New- York,  now  governor  of  that 
V  State  (Mr.  Marcy),  is  that,  "to  the  victors  belong  the 
N^poils  of  victory  ! "  a  sentiment  recently  reiterated  during 
the  present  session,  as  I  understand,  by  an  influential  mem- 
ber in  the  other  House,  and  who  had  the  assurance  to 
declare  every  man  a  hypocrite  who  does  not  avow  it.  Can 
any  one,  who  will  duly  reflect  on  these  things,  venture  to 
say  that  all  is  sound,  and  that  our  Government  is  not  un- 
dergoing a  great  and  fatal  change  ?  Let  us  not  deceive 
ourselves — the  very  essence  of  a  free  government  consists  ii 
considering  offices  as  public  trusts,  bestowed  for  the  good  oi 
the  country,  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  an  individual  or 
party  ;  and  that  system  of  political  morals  which  regards 
offices  in  a  different  light,  as  public  prizes  to  be  won  by  com- 
batants most  skilled  in  all  the  arts  and  corruption  of  political^ 
tactics,  and  to  be  used  and  enjoyed  as  their  proper  spoils — \ 
strikes  a  fatal  blow  at  the  very  vitals  of  free  institutions. 
Mr.  C.  said,  experience  has  shown  that  there  is  a  great 


SPEECHES.  463 


tendency  in  our  system  to  degenpra.tf*  inf.n  fhia  fligo^f^ 
and  I  will  venture  to  repeat  (it  cannot  be  done  too  often), 
what  is  stated  in  the  report,  that  whenever  the  Executive 
patronage  shall  become  sufficiently  strong  to  form  a  party 
'based  on  its  influence  exclusively,  the  liberty  of  the  country, 
should  that  state  of  things  continue  for  any  considerable 
period,  must  be  lost.  We  would  make  a  great  mistakejwere  ». 
we  to  suppose  that,  becanse^the  Government  of  Great  Bri-  r** 
tain  can  maintain  its  freedom  under  an  immense  patronage, 
ours  also  can.  The  genius  of  the  two  governments  in 
this  particular  is  wholly  dissimilar  ;  so  muchjojs  to  form  a 
perfect  contrast.  It  is  the  feature  by  which  they  are 
most  distinguished.  No  free  government  that  ever  existed 
could  maintain  its  liberty  under  so  much  patronage  as  that 
of  Great  Britain,  and  there  are  few  that  could  not  bear  more 
than  ours.  But,  said  Mr.  C.,  it  is  a  great  subject,  which 
I  cannot  enter  upon  on  the  present  occasion.  I  return  to 
the  objection  which  the  Senator  made  to  the  statement  of 
the  expenditures  of  the  year  1833.  I  could  not  be  ignorant, 
said  Mr.  C.,  in  making  a  movement  against  Executive  patron- 
age, that  I  would  bring  down  upon  me  the  vengeance  of  that 
great  and  powerful  corps  now  held  together  by  this  single 
cohesive  principle  —  a  principle  as  flexible  as  India  rubber, 
and  as  tough  too.  The  hj^taryjn£_-the  world  proves  that  lj.e 
who  attempts  reformation,  attempts  it  at  no  small  hazard. 
I  know  the  relation  which  the  Senator  bears  to  the  dominant 
party.  He  is  identified  with  them, 

[Here  Mr.  Benton  said,  Mrs.  Royal  says  so  ;  to  which  Mr.  C.  re  , 
plied,  she  says  truly  ;  and  proceeded,] 

and  is  their  organ  on  the  present  occasion.     His  position 
compels  him  to  adopt  the  course  he  has  pursued. 

There  remain,  then,  only  two  items  of  the  seven  millions 
to  be  deducted  :  certain  refunded  duties,  and  the  payment 
under  the  Danish  convention,  amounting  to  less  than  one 


464  SPEECHES. 

million  and  a  half,  which,  if  they  were  paid  during  the  year, 
may  be  deducted  as  of  an  extraordinary  nature,  and  for 
which  the  administration  is  not  responsible  ;  and  thus  the 
seven  millions  of  the  Senator  dwindles  down  to  about  one- 
fifth  of  the  amount,  and  the  expenditures  of  the  year,  after 
being  freed  of  all  the  items  of  which  it  can  justly  be,  will 
give  an  increase  of  expenditure  in  the  year  1833,  over  that 
of  1822,  of  $11,429,750. 

%  When  the  report  asserted,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  the  period 
from  1823  to  1833,  was  one  of  profound  peace,  to  which  the 
Senator  so  violently  objects,  the  committee  were  not  ignorant 
of  the  disturbance  with  Black  Hawk  and  his  followers,  on 
our  northwest  frontier,  which  the  Senator  has  attempted  to 
dignify  by  calling  it  a  war.  If  my  memory  serves  me,  it  was 
limited  to  a  single  tribe,  headed  by  a  single  chief,  and  did 
not  extend  to  the  nation  to  which  he  belonged,  and  lasted 
but  a  few  months  ;  and  it  is  in  vain  for  the  Senator  from 
Missouri  to  impeach  the  correctness  of  the  report,  which 
asserts  the  period  to  be  one  of  profound  peace,  by  calling  to 
our  recollection  this  paltry  affair,  which  originated  in  the 
misconduct  of  the  administration,  and  has  swelled  into  the 
little  magnitude  which  it  attained,  by  its  mismanagement. 
The  Senator  from  Missouri  endeavors  to  escape  from  the 
inconsistency  in  which  he  is  placed  by  his  report  in  1826  and 
his  present  position.  He  says  that  I  was  mistaken  in  placing 
his  defence  of  General  Jackson's  removals  from  office  on 
political  grounds,  on  the  principle  of  retaliation  ;  that  it  was 
not  on  that  principle,  but  that  of  equalizing  the  offices 
between  the  parties.  I,  said  Mr.  C.,  have  not  the  sagacity 
to  perceive  the  difference  as  applied  to  the  present  case,  or 
by  what  possibility  the  Senator  can  escape  from  the  incon- 
sistency in  which  he  is  involved,  by  substituting  the  one  for 
the  other.  What  are  the  facts  ?  In  1826,  as  Chairman  of 
the  Select  Committee  on  Executive  Patronage,  he  made  a 
report,  in  which  he  condemned  the  principle  of  removal  from 


SPEECHES.  465 

office  in  the  severest  terms,  more  severe  than  those  used  in 
the  present  report.  He  traced  its  destructive  tendency  to 
the  great  increase  which  it  was  calculated  to  give  to  Execu- 
tive patronage,  and  pronounced  the  exercise  of  the  power  by 
the  President  to  be  unconstitutional ;  and  now,  when  the 
present  administration  has  carried  the  exercise  of  this  very 
power,  thus  condemned  by  the  Senator,  more  than  thirty- 
fold  beyond  any  or  all  preceding  administrations,  the  Senator 
ventures  to  rest  his  vindication  of  the  administration  and  his 
support  of  it  on  the  ground  of  equalization — equalization ! 
What  allusion,  what  exception  did  the  Senator  make  in  favor 
of  equalization  in  his  report  ?  and  how  can  equalization  any 
more  than  retaliation  justify  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 

Mr.  0.  said,  I  regret  that  I  have  been  forced  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  these  topics  on  the  present  bill,  in  reference  to 
which  the  committee  is  unanimous ;  but  the  extraordinary 
course  of  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  his  bold  and  unfounded 
charges  and  unwarranted  imputations,  compel  me  to  adopt 
the  course  which  I  have.  I  now  hope  that  the  bill  may  be 
allowed  to  proceed,  and  that  further  discussion  on  the  merits 
of  the  report  will  be  postponed  to  some  future  and  more 
suitable  occasion. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Abolition  Petitions,  delivered  in  the  Senate, 
March  9th,  1836. 

[The  question  of  receiving  the  petitions  from  Pennsylvania  for  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  being  under  considera- 
tion : — ] 

MB.  CALHOUN  rose,  and  said :  If  we  may  judge  from 
what  has  been  said,  the  mind  of  the  Senate  is  fully  made  up 
on  the  subject  of  these  petitions.     With  the  exception  of  the 
VOL.  ii. — 30 


466  SPEECHES. 

two  Senators  from  Vermont,  all  who  have  spoken  have 
avowed  their  conviction,  not  only  that  they  contain  nothing 
requiring  the  action  of  the  Senate,  but  that  the  petitions  are 
highly  mischievous,  as  tending  to  agitate  and  distract  the 
country,  and  to  endanger  the  Union  itself.  With  these  con- 
cessions, I  may  fairly  ask,  why  should  these  petitions  be  re- 
ceived ?  Why  receive,  when  we  have  made  up  our  mind  not 
to  act  ?  Why  idly  waste  our  time  and  lower  our  dignity  in 
the  useless  ceremony  of  receiving  to  reject,  as  is  proposed, 
should  the  petitions  be  received  ?  Why  finally  receive  what 
all  acknowledge  to  be  highly  dangerous  and  mischievous  ? 
But  one  reason  has  or  can  be  assigned — that  not  to  receive 
would  be  a  violation  of  the  right  of  petition,  and,  of  course, 
that  we  are  bound  to  receive,  however  objectionable  and 
dangerous  the  petitions  may  be.  If  such  be  the  fact,  there 
is  an  end  to  the  question.  As  great  as  would  be  the  advan- 
tage to  the  abolitionists,  if  we  are  bound  to  receive — if  it 
would  be  a  violation  of  the  right  of  petition  not  to  receive, 
we  must  acquiesce.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  shall  be  shown, 
not  only  that  we  are  not  bound  to  receive,  but  that  to  receive 
on  the  ground  on  which  it  has  been  placed,  would  sacrifice 
the  constitutional  rights  of  this  body,  would  yield  to  the 
abolitionists  all  they  ^nnlrl  Vinpp  a.f.  f.Tiia  f.imp^  and  would  sur- 
render all  the  outworks  by  which  the  slavcholding  States  can 
defend  their  rights  and  property  HERE,  then  an  unanimous  re- 
jection of  these  petitions  ought  of  right  to  follow. 

The  decision,  then,  of  the  question  now  before  the  Senate 
is  reduced  to  the  single  point — Are  ge—  fopjjnfl  to  receive 
these  petitions  ?  Or,  to  vary  the  form.,  of  the  question — 
Would  it  be  a  violation  of  the  right  of  petition  not  to  re- 
ceive them  ? 

When  the  ground  was  first  taken  that  it  would  be  a 
violation,  I  could  scarcely  persuade  myself  that  those  whc 
took  it  were  in  earnest,  so  contrary  was  it  to  all  my  concep- 
tions of  the  rights  of  this  body,  and  the  provisions  of  the 


SPEECHES.  467 

constitution  ;  but  finding  it  so  earnestly  maintained,  I  have 
since  carefully  investigated  the  subject,  and  the  result  has 
been  a  confirmation  of  my  first  impression,  and  a  conviction 
that  the  claim  of  right  is  without  shadow  of  foundation. 
The  question,  I  must  say,  has  not  been  fairly  met.  Those 
opposed  to  the  side  which  we  support,  have  discussed  the 
question  as  if  we  denied  the  right  of  petition,  when  they 
could  not  but  know  that  the  true  issue  is  not  as  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  right,  which  is  acknowledged  by  all,  but  its  extent 
and  limits,  which  not  one  of  our  opponents  has  so  much  as 
attempted  to  ascertain.  What  they  have  declined  doing  I 
undertake  to  perform. 

There  must  be  some  point,  all  will  agree^  where  the  right 
of  petition  ends,  and  that  of  this.. body  begins.  Where  is 
that  point  ?  I  have  examined  this  question  carefully,  and  I 
assert  boldly,  without  the  least  fear  of  refutation,  that, 
stretched  to  the  utmost,  the  right  cannot  be  extended  beyond 
the  presentation  of  a  petition,  at  which  point  the  rights  of 
this' body"  commence.  When  a  petition  is  presented,  it  is 
before  the  Senate.  It  must  then  be  acted  on.  Some  dis- 
position must  be  made  of  it  before  the  Senate  can  proceed  to 
the  consideration  of  any  other  subject.  This  no  one  will 
deny.  With  the  action  of  the  Senate  its  right  commences — 
a  right  secured  by  an  express  provision  of  the  constitution, 
which  vests  each  House  with  the  authority  of  regulating  its 
own  proceedings, — that  is?  of  determining  by  fixed  rules  the 
order  and  form  of  its  action.  To  extend  the  right  of  petition 
beyond  presentation,  is  clearly  to  extend  it  beyond  that 
point  where  the  action  of  the  Senate  commences,,  and,  as _such, 
is  a  manifest  violation  of  its  constitutional  rights.  Here 
then  we  have  the  limits  between  the  right  of  petition  and 
the  right  of  the  Senate  to  regulate  its  proceedings  clearly 
fixed,  and  so  perfectly  defined  as  not  to  admit  of  mistake — 
and  I  would  add  of  controversy,  had  it  not  been  questioned 
in  this  discussion. 


468  SPEECHES. 

If  what  I  have  asserted  required  confirmation,  ample 
might  be  found  in  our  rules,  which  embody  the  deliberate 
sense  of  the  Senate  on  this  point,  from  the  commencement 
of  the  Government  to  this  day.  Among  them  the  Senate 
has  prescribed  that  of  its  proceedings  on  the  presentation  of 
petitions.  It  is  contained  in  the_24thJB>uJe,  which  I  ask  the 
Secretary  to  read,  with  Mr.  Jefferson's  remarks  in  reference 
to  it  :— 

"  Before  any  petition  or  memorial  addressed  to  the  Senate  shall  be 
received,  and  read  at  the  table,  whether  the  same  shall  be  introduced  by 
sident  or  a  member,  a  brief  statement  of  the  contents  of  the  petition 
memorial  shall  verbally  be  made  by  the  introducer." — Rule  24. 


^    %-x  ~~r.  Jefferson's  remarks  : — 
<A & 

"  Regularly  a  motion  for  receiving  it  must  be  made  and  seconded, 
and  the  question  put  whether  it  shall  be  received;  but  a  cry  from  the 
House  of  '  receive,'  or  even  a  silence,  dispenses  with  the  formality  of  the 


Here  we  have  a  confirmation  of  all  I  have  asserted.  It 
clearly  proves  that  when  a  petition  is  presented,  the  action 
of  the  Senate  commences.  The  first  act  is  to  receive  the 
petition.  Eeceived  by  whom  ?  Not  the  Secretary,  but  the 
Senate.  And  how  can  it  be  received  by  the  Senate  but  on  a 
motion  to  receive,  and  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  body  ? 
And  Mr.  Jefferson  accordingly  tells  us  that,  regularly,  such 
a  motion  must  be  made  and  seconded.  On  this  question 
then,  the  right  of  the  Senate  begins,  and  its  right  is  as  per- 
fect and  full  to  receive  or  reject,  as  it  is  to  adopt  or  reject  any 
other  question,  in  any  subsequent  stage  of  its  proceedings. 
When  I  add,  that  this  rule  was  adopted  as  far  back  as  the 
19th  of  April,  1789,  at  the  first  session  of  the  Senate,  and 
that  it  has  been  retained,  without  alteration,  in  all  the  sub- 
sequent changes  and  modifications  of  the  rules,  we  have  the 
strongest  evidence  of  the  deliberate  sense  of  this  body  in 
reference  to  the  point  under  consideration. 


SPEECHES.  469 

I  feel  that  I  might  here  terminate  the  discussion.  I  have 
shown  conclusively  that  the  right  of  petition  cannot  possibly 
be  extended  beyond  presentation,  .  At  that  .point  it  is  met 
by  the  rights  of  the  Senate  ;  and  it  follows  as  a  necessary 
consequence,  that  so  far  from  being  bound  to  receive  these 
petitions — so  far  would  a  rejection  be  from  violating  the 
right  of  petition,  we  are  left  perfectly  free  to  reject  or  to  re- 
ceive at  pleasure,  and  that  we  cannot  be  deprived  of  it  with- 
out violating  the  rights  of  this  body,  secured  by  the  consti- 
tution, j-  snjux  R^y/i  </  p**CJu.«U/N£- 

But  on  a  question  of  such  magnitude,  I  feel  it  to  be  a 
duty  to  remove  every  difficulty  ;  and,  that  not  the  shadow  of  a 
doubt  may  remain,  I  shall  next  proceed  to  reply  to  the  ob- 
jections our  opponents  have  made  to  the  grounds  I  have 
taken.  At  the  head  of  these,  it  has  been  urged,  again  and 
again,  that  petitioners  have  a  right  to  be  heard ;  and  that  not 
to  receive  petitions  is  to  refuse  a  hearing.  It  is  to  be  re- 
gretted that  throughout  this  discussion  those  opposed  to  us 
have  dealt  in  such  vague  generalities,  and  ventured  assertions 
with  so  little  attention  to  facts.  Why  have  they  not  in- 
formed us,  in  the  present  instance,  what  is  meant  by  the  right 
to  be  heard,  and  how  that  right  is  violated  by  a  refusal  to 
receive  ?  Had  they  thought  proper  to  give  us  this  informa- 
tion, it  would  at  least  have  greatly  facilitated  my  reply  ;  but 
as  it  is,  I  am  constrained  to  inquire  into  the  different  senses 
in  which  the  assertion  may  be  taken,  and  then  to  show  that 
in  not  one  of  them  is  the  right  of  petition  in  the  slightest 
degree  infringed  by  a  refusal  to  receive. 

What  then  is  meant  by  the  assertion  that  these  peti- 
tioners have  a  right  to  be  heard  ?  Is  it  meant  that  they 
have  a  right  to  appear  in  the  Senate  chamber  in  person  to 
present  their  petition,  and  to  be  heard  in  its  defence  ?  If  this 
be  the  meaning,  the  dullest  apprehension  must  see  that  the 
question  of  receiving  has  not  the  slightest  bearing  on  such 
right.  If  they  have  the  right  to  be  heard  personally  at  our 


470  SPEECHES. 

bar,  it  is  not  the  24th  rale  of  our  proceedings,  but  the  19th 
which  violates  that  right.  This  rule  expressly  provides  that 
a  motion  to  admit  any  person  whatever  within  the  doors  of 
the  Senate  to  present  a  petition  shall  be  out  of  order,  and 
of  course  excludes  the  petitioners  from  being  heard  in  per- 
son. But  it  may  be  meant  that  petitioners  have  a  right  to 
have  their  petitions  presented  to  the  Senate,  and  read  in  their 
hearing.  If  this  be  the  meaning,  the  right  has  been  enjoyed 
in  the  present  instance  to  the  fullest  extent.  The  petition 
was  presented  by  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Bu- 
chanan) in  the  usual  mode,  by  giving  a  statement  of  its  con- 
tents, and  on  my  call  was  read  by  the  Secretary  at  his  table. 

But  one  more  sense  can  be  attached  to  the  assertion.  It 
may  be  meant  that  the  petitioners  have  a  right  to  have  their 
petitions  discussed  by  the  Senate.  If  this  be  intended, 
I  will  venture  to  say,  there  never  was  an  assertion  more 
directly  in  the  teeth  of  facts  than  that  which  has  been  so 
frequently  made  in  the  course  of  this  discussion — that,  to  re- 
fuse to  receive  the  petition,  is  to  refuse  a  hearing  to  the  pe- 
titioners. Has  not  this  question  been  before  us  for  months  ? 
Has  not  the  petition  been  discussed  day  after  day,  fully  and 
freely,  in  all  its  bearings  ?  And  how,  with  these  facts 
before  us,  with  the  debates  still  ringing  in  our  ears,  any  Sen- 
ator can  rise  in  his  place,  and  gravely  pronounce  that,  to  re- 
fuse to  receive  this  petition  is  to  refuse  a  hearing  to  the  pe- 
titioners— to  refuse  discussion,  in  the  broadest  sense,  is  past 
my  comprehension.  Our  opponents,  as  if  in  their  eagerness 
to  circumscribe  the  rights  of  the  Senate,  and  to  enlarge  those 
of  the  abolitionists  (for  such  must  be  the  effect  of  their 
course),  have  closed  their  senses  against  facts  passing  before 
their  eyes  ;  and  have  entirely  overlooked  the  nature  of  the 
question  now  before  the  Senate,  and  which  they  have  been 
so  long  discussing. 

The  question  on  receiving  the  petition  not  only  admits 
discussion,  but  admits  it  in  the  most  ample  manner  ;  more 


SPEECHES.  471 

so,  in  fact,  than  any  other,  except  the  final  question  on  the 
rejection  of  the  prayer  of  the  petition,  or  some  tantamount 
question.  Whatever  may  go  to  show  that  the  petition  is  or 
is  not  deserving  the  action  of  this  body  may  be  freely  urged 
for  or  against  it,  as  has  been  done  on  the  present  occasion.  In 
this  respect  there  is  a  striking  difference  between  it  and  many 
of  the  subsequent  questions  which  may  be  raised  after  recep- 
tion, and  particularly  the  one  made  by  the  Senator  from 
Tennessee  (Mr.  G-rundy),  who  now  is  so  strenuous  an  advo- 
cate in  favor  of  the  right  of  the  petitioners  to  be  heard.  He 
spoke  with  apparent  complacency  of  his  course,  as  it  re- 
spects another  of  these  petitions.  And  what  was  that 
course  ?  He  who  is  now  so  eager  for  discussion,  to  give  a 
hearing,  moved  to  lay  the  petition  on  the  table — a  motion 
which  cuts  off  all  discussion. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  if  the  question  on  receiving  peti- 
tions admits  of  so  wide  a  scope  for  discussion,  why  not  re- 
ceive this  petition,  and  discuss  it  at  some  subsequent  stage  ? 
Why  not  receive,  it  in  order  to  reject  its  prayer,  as  proposed 
by  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Buchanan),  instead 
of  rejecting  the  petition  itself  on  the  question  of  receiving, 
as  we  propose  ?  What  is  the  difference  betwen  the  two  ? 

I  do  not  intend  at  this  stage  to  compare,  or  rather  to 
contrast  the  two  courses,  for  they  admit  of  no  comparison. 
My  object  at  present  is  to  establish  beyond  the  possibility  of 
doubt  that  we  are  not  bound  to  receive  these  petitions  ;  and 
when  that  is  accomplished,  I  will  then  show  the  disastrous 
consequences  which  must  follow  the  reception  of  the  petition, 
be  the  after  disposition  what  it  may.  In  the  mean  time  it  is 
sufficient  to  remark  that,  it  is  only  on  the  question  of  re- 
ceiving that  opposition  can  be  made  to  the  petition  itself.  On 
all  others,  the  opposition  is  to  its  prayer.  On  the  decision, 
then,  of  the  question  of  receiving  depends  the  important 
question  of  jurisdiction.  To  receive  is  to  take  jurisdiction — 
to  give  an  implied  pledge  to  investigate  and  decide  on  the 


472  SPEECHES. 

prayer, — to  give  the  petition  a  place  in  our  archives,  and 
become  responsible  for  its  safe-keeping ;  and  he_who  votes  for 
receiving  this  petition  on  the  ground  on  which  its  reception 
is  placed,  votes  that  Congress  is  bound  to  take  jurisdiction 
of  the  question  of  abolishing  slavery  both  here  and  in  the 
States — gives  an  implied  pledge  to  take  the  subject  under 
consideration,  and  orders  the  petition  to  be  placed  among  the 
public  records  for  safe-keeping. 

But  to  proceed  in  reply  to  the  objections  of  our  opponents. 
It  is  next  urged  that  precedents  are  against  the  side  we 
support.  I  meet  this  objection  with  a  direct  denial.  From 
the  beginning  of  the  Government  to  the  commencement  of 
this  session,  there  is  not  a  single  precedent  that  justifies  the 
receiving  of  these  petitions  on  the  ground  on  which  their 
reception  is  urged.  The  real  state  of  the  case  is,  that  we 
are  not  following  but  making  precedents.  For  the  first  time 
has  the  principle  been  assumed,  that  we  are  bound  to  receive 
petitions  ;  that  we  have  no  discretion,  but  must  take  juris- 
diction over  them,  however  absurd,  frivolous,  mischievous,  or 
foreign  from  the  purpose  for  which  the  Government  was 
created.  Receive  these  petitions,  and  you  will  create  a  pre- 
cedent which  will  hereafter  establish  this  monstrous  principle. 
As  yet  there  are  none.  The  case  relied  on  by  the  Senator 
from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy)  is  in  no  respect  analogous. 
No  question  in  that  case  was  made  on  the  reception  of  the 
petition.  The  petition  slipped  in  without  taking  a  vote,  as 
is  daily  done,  when  the  attention  of  the  Senate  is  not  par- 
ticularly called  to  the  subject.  The  question  on  which  the 
discussion  took  place  was  on  the  reference,  and  not  on  the 
reception,  as  in  this  case.  But  what  is  decisive  against  the 
precedent,  and  which  I  regret  the  Senator  (Mr.  Grundy)  did 
not  state,  so  that  it  might  accompany  his  remarks,  is  the 
fact,  that  the  petition  was  not  for  abolishing  slavery.  The 
subject  was  the  African  slave  trade ;  and  the  petition  simply 
prayed  that  Congress  would  inquire  whether  they  might  not 


SPEECHES.  473 

adopt  some  measure  .of  interdiction  prior  to  1808,  when,  by 
the  constitution,  they  would  be  authorized  to  suppress  that 
trade.  I  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  the  prayer  of  the  pe- 
tition : 

"  But  we  find  it  indispensably  incumbent  on  us.  as  a  religious  body, — 
assuredly  believing  that  both  the  true  temporal  interests  of  nations,  and 
eternal  well-being  of  individuals,  depend  on  doing  justly,  loving  mercy,  and 
walking  humbly  before  God,  the  creator,  preserver,  and  benefactor  of  men, — 
thus  to  attempt  to  excite  your  attention  to  the  affecting  subject  (of  the  slave 
trade),  earnestly  desiring  that  the  infinite  Father  of  Spirits  may  so  enrich 
your  minds  with  his  love  and  truth,  and  so  influence  your  understanding 
by  that  pure  wisdom  which  is  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits,  as  that  a  sincere 
and  an  impartial  inquiry  may  take  place,  whether  it  be  not  an  essential 
part  of  the  duty  of  your  exalted  station  to  exert  upright  endeavors,  to  the 
full  extent  of  your  power,  to  remove  every  obstruction  to  public  righteous- 
ness, which  the  influence  or  artifice  of  particular  persons  governed  by  the 
narrow,  mistaken  views  of  self-interest  has  occasioned ;  and  whether,  not- 
withstanding such  seeming  impediments,  it  be  not  really  within  your 
power  to  exercise  justice  and  mercy,  which,  if  adhered  to,  we  cannot  doubt 
abolition  must  produce  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade." 

Now,  I  ask  the  Senator,  where  is  the  analogy  between 
this  and  the  present  petition,  the  reception  of  which  he  so 
strenuously  urges  ?  He  is  a  lawyer  of  long  experience  and 
of  distinguished  reputation — and  I  put  the  question  to  him, 
on  what  possible  principle  can  a  case  so  perfectly  dissimilar 
justify  the  vote  he  intends  to  give  on  the  present  occasion  ? 
On  what  possible  ground  can  the  vote  of  Mr.  Madison  to  refer 
that  petition,  on  which  he  has  so  much  relied,  justify  him  in 
receiving  this  ?  Does  he  not  perceive,  in  his  own  example, 
the  danger  of  forming  precedents  ?  If  he  may  call  to  his 
aid  the  authority  of  Mr.  Madison,  in  a  case  so  dissimilar,  to 
justify  the  reception  of  this  petition,  and  thereby  extend  the 
jurisdiction  of  Congress  over  the  question  of  emancipation,  to 
what  purpose  hereafter  may  not  the  example  of  his  course  on 
the  present  occasion  be  perverted  ? 

It  is  not  my  design  to  censure  Mr.  Madison's  course,  but 


474  SPEECHES. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  regret  that  his  name  is 
not  found  associated,  on  that  occasion,  with  the  sagacious  and 
firm  representatives  from  the  South — Smith,  Tucker  and 
Brooke,  of  South  Carolina,  James  Jackson,  of  Georgia,  and 
many  others  who,  at  that  early  period,  foresaw  the  danger, 
and  met  it  as  it  ought  ever  to  be  met  by  those  who  regard 
the  peace  and  security  of  the  slaveholding  States.  Had  he 
added  the  weight  of  his  talents  and  authority  to  theirs,  a 
more  healthy  tone  of  sentiment  than  that  which  now  unfortu- 
nately exists,  would  this  day  have  been  the  consequence. 

Another  case  has  been  cited,  to  justify  the  vote  for  recep- 
tion. I  refer  to  the  petition  from  the  Quakers,  in  1805, 
which  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Buchanan)  relies 
on  to  sustain  him  in  receiving  the  present  petition.  What  I 
have  said  in  reply  to  the  precedent  cited  by  the  Senator  from 
Tennessee,  applies  equally  to  this.  Like  that,  the  petition 
prayed  legislation,  not  on  the  abolition  of  slavery,  but  the  Afri- 
can slave  trade,  over  which  subject  Congress,  then  in  a  few 
years,  would  have  full  jurisdiction  by  the  constitution,  and 
might  well  have  their  attention  called  to  it  in  advance.  But, 
though  their  objects  were  the  same,  the  manner  in  which  the 
petitions  were  met  was  very  dissimilar.  Instead  of  being 
permitted  to  be  received  silently,  like  the  former,  this  petition 
was  met  at  the  threshold.  The  question  of  receiving  was 
made,  as  on  the  present  occasion,  and  its  rejection  sustained 
by  a  strong  Southern  vote,  as  the  journal  will  show.  The 
Secretary  will  read  the  journal : 

"Mr.  Logan  presented  a  petition  signed  Thomas  Morris,  clerk,  on 
behalf  of  the  meeting  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  called  Quakers, 
in  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  &c.,  stating  that  the  petitioners,  from  a 
sense  of  religious  duty,  had  again  come  forward  to  plead  the  cause  of  their 
oppressed  and  degraded  fellow-men  of  the  African  race.  On  the  question, 
;  Shall  this  petition  be  received  ? '  it  passed  in  the  affirmative — yeas,  19 ; 
nays,  9." 

Among  those  to  receive  the  petition,  there  were  but  four 


SPEECHES.  475 

from  the  slaveholding  States,  and  this  on  a  simple  petition 
praying  for  legislation  on  a  subject  over  which  Congress  in  so 
short  a  time  would  have  full  authority.  What  an  example 
to  us  on  the  present  occasion  !  Can  any  man  doubt,  from 
the  vote,  if  the  Southern  Senators  on  that  occasion  had  been 
placed  in  our  present  situation — that,  had  it  been  their  lot 
as  it  is  ours,  to  meet  that  torrent  of  petitions  which  is  now 
poured  in  on  Congress — not  from  peaceable  Quakers,  but 
ferocious  incendiaries — not  to  suppress  the  African  slave 
trade,  but  to  abolish  slavery — they  would,  with  united  voice, 
have  rejected  the  petition  with  scorn  and  indignation  ?  Can 
any  one  who  knew  him  doubt,  that  one  of  the  Senators  from 
the  South  (the  gallant  Sumter),  who  on  that  occasion  voted 
for  receiving  the  petition,  would  have  been  among  the  first 
to  vindicate  the  interests  of  those  whom  he  represented,  had 
the  question  at  that  day  been  what  it  is  on  the  present 
occasion  ? 

Wejfre  next  told  that,  instead  of  looking  to  the  consti- 
tution, in  order  to  ascertain  what  are  the  limits  to  the  right 
of  petition,  we  must  push  that  instrument  aside,  and  go  Jback 
to  Magna  Charta  and  the  Declaration  of  Eights  for  its  origin 
and  limitation.  We  live  in  strange  times.  It  seems  there 
are  Christians  now  more  orthodox  than  the  Bible,  and  poli- 
ticians whose  standard  is  higher  than  the  constitution ;  but 
I  object  not  to  tracing  the  right  to  these  ancient  and  venera- 
ted sources ;  I  hold  .in  high  estimation  the  institutions  of  our 
English-ancestors.  They  grew  up  gradually  through  many 
generations,  by  the  incessant  and  untiring  efforts  of  an  intel- 
ligent and  brave  people  struggling  for  centuries  against  the 
power  of  the  crown.  To  them  we  are  indebted  for  nearly 
all  that  has  been  gained  for  liberty  in  modern  times,  except- 
ing what  we  have  added.  But  may  I  not  ask  how  it  has 
happened  that  our  opponents,  in  going  back  to  these  sacred 
instruments,  have  not  thought  proper  to  cite  their  provisions, 
or  to  show  in  what  manner  our  refusal  to  receive  these 


476  SPEECHES. 

petitions  violates  the  right  of  petition  as  secured  by  them  ? 
I  feel  under  no  obligation  to  supply  the  omission — to  cito 
what  they  have  omitted  to  cite,  or  to  prove,  from  the  instru- 
ments themselves,  that  to  be  no  violation  of  them  which  they 
have  not  proved  to  be  a  violation.  It  is  unnecessary.  The 
practice  of  parliament  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  It  proves 
conclusively  that  it  is  no  violation  of  the  right,  as  secured  by 
those  instruments,  to  refuse  to  receive  petitions.  To  estab- 
lish  what  this  practice  is,  I  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  from 
Hatsell,  a  work  of  the  highest  authority,  the  several  para- 
graphs which  are  marked  with  a  pencil,  commencing  at  page 
760,  under  the  head  of  Petitions  on  Matter  of  Supply  : 

"  On  the  9th  of  April  1694,  a  petition  was  tendered  to  the  House,  re- 
lating to  the  bill  for  granting  to  their  Majesties  several  duties  upon  the 
tonnage  of  ships ;  and  the  question  being  put,  that  the  petition  be  received, 
it  passed  in  the  negative. 

"  On  the  28th  of  April,  1698,  a  petition  was  offered  to  the  House 
against  the  bill  for  laying  a  duty  upon  inland  pit  coal ;  and  the  question 
being  put,  that  the  petition  be  received,  it  passed  in  the  negative.  See, 
also,  the  29th  and  30th  of  June,  1698,  petitions  relating  to  the  duties 
upon  Scotch  linens,  and  upon  whale  fins  imported. — Vide  20th  of  April, 
1698. 

"  On  the  5th  of  January,  1703,  a  petition  of  the  maltsters  of  Notting- 
ham being  offered,  against  the  bill  for  continuing  the  duties  on  malt,  and 
the  question  being  put,  that  the  petition  be  brought  up,  it  passed  in  the 
negative. 

"  On  the  21st  December,  1706,  Resolved,  That  this  House  will  receive 
no  petition  for  any  sum  of  money  relating  to  public  service,  but  what  is 
recommended  from  the  Crown.  Upon  the  llth  of  June,  1713,  this  is  de- 
clared to  be  a  standing  order  of  the  House. 

"  On  the  29th  of  March,  1707,  Resolved,  That  the  House  will  not  pro- 
ceed on  any  petition,  motion,  or  bill  for  granting  any  money,  or  for  releasing 
or  compounding  any  money  owing  to  the  crown,  but  in  a  Committee  of 
the  Whole  House  ;  and  this  is  declared  to  be  a  standing  order.  See,  also, 
the  29th  of  November,  1710. 

"  On  the  23d  of  April,  1713,  Resolved,  That  the  House  will  receive  no 
petition  for  compounding  debts  to  the  Crown,  upon  any  branch  of  the 
revenue,  without  a  certificate  from  the  proper  officer  annexed,  stating  the 


SPEECHES.  477 

debt,  what  prosecutions  have  been  made  for  the  recovery  thereof,  and 
what  the  petitioner  and  his  security  are  able  to  pay. 

"  On  the  25th  of  March,  1715,  this  is  declared  to  be  a  standing  order. 
See  the  2d  of  March,  1735,  and  the  9th  of  January  1752,  the  proceedings 
upon  petitions  of  this  sort. 

"  On  the  8th  of  March,  1732,  a  petition  being  offered  against  a  bill 
depending  for  securing  the  trade  of  the  sugar  colonies,  it  was  refused  to  be 
brought  up.  A  motion  was  then  made  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to 
search  precedents  in  relation  to  the  receiving  or  not  receiving  petitions 
against  the  imposing  of  duties;  and  the  question  being  put,  it  passed  in 
the  negative." 

Nothing  can  be  more  conclusive.  Not  only  are  peti- 
tions rejected,  but  resolutions  are  passed  refusing  to  receive 
entire  classes  of  petitions,  and  that  too  on  the  subject  of  im- 
posing taxes — a  subject,  above  all  others,  in  relation  to  which 
we  would  suppose  the  right  ought  to  be  held  most  sacred, — 
and  this  within  a  few  years  after  the  declaration  of  rights. 
With  these  facts  before  us,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  as- 
sertion of  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grandy),  who 
pronounced  in  his  place,  in  the  boldest  and  most  unqualified 
manner,  that  there  was  no  deliberative  body  which  did  not 
act  on  the  principle  that  it  was  bound  to  receive  petitions  ? 
That  a  member  of  his  long  experience  and  caution  should 
venture  to  make  an  assertion  so  unfounded,  is  one  of  the 
many  proofs  of  the  carelessness,  both  as  to  facts  and  argu- 
ment, with  which  this  important  subject  has  been  examined 
and  discussed  on  that  side. 

But  it  is  not  necessary  to  cross  the  Atkntic,  or  to  go 
back  to  remote  periods  to  find  precedents  for  the  rejection 
of  petitions.  This  body  on  a  memorable  occasion,  and  after 
full  deliberation,  a  short  time  since,  rejected  a  petition  :  and 
among  those  who  voted  for  the  rejection  will  be  found  the 
names  (of  course  I  exclude  my  own)  of  the  most  able  and 
experienced  members  of  the  Senate.  I  refer  to  the  case  of 
resolutions  in  the  nature  of  a  remonstrance  from  the  citizens 
of  York,  Pennsylvania,  approving  the  act  of  the  President  in 


478  SPEECHES. 

removing  the  deposits.     I  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  the  jour- 
nals on  the  occasion : 

"  The  Vice-President  communicated  a  preamble  and  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions adopted  at  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  York  county,  Pennsylvania, 
approving  the  act  of  the  Executive  removing  the  public  money  from  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  and  opposed  to  the  renewal  of  the  charter  of 
said  bank  ;  which  having  been  read,  Mr.  Clay  objected  to  the  reception. 
And  on  the  question,  Shall  they  be  received  ?  it  was  determined  in  the 
negative — yeas,  20  ;  nays,  24. 

"  On  motion  of  Mr.  Preston,  the  yeas  and  nays  being  desired  by  one- 
fifth  of  the  Senators  present,  those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative,  are, 

"Messrs.  Benton,  Brown,  Forsyth,  Grundy,  Hendricks,  Hill,  Kane, 
King  of  Alabama ;  King  of  Georgia ;  Linn,  McKean,  Mangum,  Morris, 
Robinson,  Shepley,  Tallmadge,  Tipton,  White,  Wilkins,  Wright. 

"  Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  are, 

"  Messrs.  Bibb,  Black,  Calhoun,  Clay,  Clayton,  Ewing,  Frelinghuysen, 
Kent,  Leigh,  Moore,  Naudain,  Poindexter,  Porter,  Prentiss,  Preston, 
Robbins,  Silsbee,  Smith,  Southard,  Sprague,  Swift,  Tomlinson,  Wagga- 
man,  Webster." 

In  citing  this  case  it  is  not  my  intention  to  call  in  ques- 
tion the  consistency  of  any  member  on  this  floor  ;  it  would 
be  unworthy  of  the  occasion.  I  doubt  not  the  vote  then  given 
was  given  from  a  full  conviction  of  its  correctness,  as  it  will 
doubtless  be  in  the  present  case,  on  whatever  side  it  may  be 
found.  My  object  is  to  show  that  the  principle  for  which 
I  contend,  so  far  from  being  opposed,  is  sustained  by  pre- 
cedents, here  and  elsewhere,  ancient  and  modern. 

In  following,  as  I  have,  those  opposed  to  me,  to  Magna 
Charta,  and  the  Declaration  of  Eights,  for  the  origin  and 
the  limits  of  the  right  of  petition,  I  am  not  disposed  with 
them  to  set  aside  the  constitution.  I  assent  to  the  position 
they  assume,  that  the  right  of  petition  existed  before  the 
constitution,  and  that  it  is  not  derived  from  it ;  but  while 
I  look  beyond  that  instrument  for  the  right,  I  hold  the  con- 
stitution, on  a  question  as  to  its  extent  and  limits,  to  be 
the  highest  authority.  The_jT^t_amendej(J_article  of  the 
pT"Yi«*ftff  t-1™.*  nrmgreafl  shall  pass  no  law 


SPEECHES.  479 

to  prevent  the  people  from  peaceably  assembling  and  peti- 
tioning for  a  redress  of  grievances^  was_  clearly  intended  to 
prescribe  the  limits  within  which  the  right  might  be  exer-  "TF 
cised.  It  is  not  pretended  that  to  refuse  to  receive  petitions 
touches  in  the  slightest  degree  on  these  limits.  To  suppose 
that  the  framers  of  the  constitution — no,  not  its  framers, 
but  those  jealous  patriots  who  were  not  satisfied  with  that 
instrument  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  its  framers,  and 
who  proposed  this  very  provision  to  guard  what  they  con- 
sidered a  sacred  right — performed  their  task  so  bunglingly  as 
to  omit  any  essential  guard,  would  be  to  do  great  injustice  to 
the  memory  of  those  stern  and  sagacious  men  ;  and  yet  this 
is  what  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy)  has  ven- 
tured to  assert.  He  said  t,Tiaj-._Tinjm>vJRi'nTi  was  added  in  guard 
against  the  rejection  of  petitions,  because  the  obligation  to 
receive  was  considered  so  clear  that  it  was  deemed  unneces- 
sary; when  he  oght  to  have  known  that,  according  to  the  • 
standing  practice  at  the  time,  parliament  was  in  the  constant  /s^ 
habit  as  has  been  shown,  of  refusing  to  receive  petitions — a 
practice  which  could  not  have  been  unknown  to  the  authors 
of  the  amendment ;  and  from  which  it  may  be  fairly  inferred 
that,  in  omitting  to  provide  that  petitions  should  be  received, 
it  was  not  intended  to  comprehend  their  reception  in  the 
right  of  petition. 

I  have  now,  I  trust,  established  beyond  all  controversy, 
that  we  are  not  bound  to  receive  these  petitions  ;  and  that 
if  we  should  reject  them  we  would  not,  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree, infringe  the  right  of  petition.  It  is  now  time  to  look 
to  the  rights  of  this  body,  and  to  see  whether,  if  we  should 
receive  them,  when  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  only  reason 
for  receiving  is,  that  we  are  bound  to  do  so,  we  would  not  es- 
tablish a  principle  which  would  trench  deeply  on  the  rights 
of  the  Senate.  I  have  already  shown,  that  where  the  action 
of  the  Senate  commences,  there  also  its  right  to  determine 
how  and  when  it  shall  act  also  commences.  I  have  also 


480  SPEECHES. 

shown  that  the  action  of  the  Senate  necessarily  begins  on  the 
presentation  of  a  petition ;  that  the  petition  is  then  before 
the  body  ;  that  the  Senate  cannot  proceed  to  other  business 
without  making  some  disposition  of  it  ;  and  that,  by  the 
24th  rule,  the  first  action  after  presentation  is  on  a  question 
to  receive  the  petition.  To  extend  the  right  of  petition  to 
the  question  of  receiving,  is  to  expunge  this  rule — to  abolish 
this  unquestionable  right  of  the  Senate,  and  that,  too,  for  the 
benefit,  in  this  case,  of  the  abolitionists.  Their  gain  would 
be  at  the  loss  of  this  body.  I  have  not  expressed  myself  too 
strongly.  Give  the  right  of  petition  the  extent  contended 
for  ;  decide  that  we  are  bound,  under  the  constitution,  to 
receive  these  incendiary  petitions,  and  the  very  motion  before 
the  Senate  would  be  out  of  order.  If  the  constitution  makes 
it  our  duty  to  receive,  we  would  have  no  discretion  left  to 
reject,  as  the  motion  presupposes.  Our  rules  of  proceeding 
must  accord  with  the  constitution.  Thus,  in  the  case  of  rev- 
enue bills,  which,  by  the  constitution,  must  originate  in  the 
other  House,  it  would  be  out  of  order  to  introduce  them 
here,  and  it  has  accordingly  been  so  decided.  For  like  rea- 
son, if  we  are  bound  to  receive  petitions,  the  present  motion 
would  be  out  of  order  ;  and,  if  such  be  your  opinion,  it  is 
your  duty,  as  the  presiding  officer,  to  call  me  to  order,  and 
to  arrest  all  further  discussion  on  the  question  of  reception. 
Let  us  now  turn  our  eyes  for  a  moment  to  the  nature  of  the 
right  which  I  fear  we  are  about  to  abandon,  with  the  view  to 
ascertain  what  must  be  the  consequence  if  we  should  surren- 
der it. 

Of  all  the  rights  belonging  to  a  deliberative  body,  I 
of  none  more  universal,  or  indispensable  to  a  proper  perform- 
ance of  its  functions,  than  the  right  to  determine  at  its  dis- 
cretion what  it  shall  receive,  over  what  it  shall  extend  its 
jurisdiction,  and  to  what  it  shall  direct  its  deliberation  and, 
action.  It  is  the  first  and  universal  law  of  all  such  bodie 
and  extends  not  only  to  petitions,  but  to  reports,  to  bil 


SPEECHES.  481 

and  resolution^  varied  only,  in  the  two  latter,  in  the  form  of 
the  question.  It  may  be  compared  to  the  function  in  the 
animal  economy,  with  which  all  living  creatures  are  endowed, 
of  selecting,  through  the  instinct  of  taste,  what  to  receive  or 
reject  ;  and  on  which  the  preservation  of  their  existence  de- 
pends. Deprive  them  of  this  function,  and  the  poisonous  as 
well  as  the  wholesome  would  be  indifferently  received  into 
their  system.  So  with  deliberative  bodies  ;  deprive  them  of 
the  essential  and  primary  right  to  determine  at  their  pleasure 
what  to  receive  or  reject,  and  they  would  become  the  passive 
receptacles,  indifferently,  of  all  that  is  frivolous,  absurd,  un- 
constitutional, immoral,  and  impious,  as  well  as  what  may 
properly  demand  their  deliberation  and  action.  Establish 
this  monstrous,  this  impious  principle  (as  it  would  prove  to 
be  in  practice),  and  what  must  be  the  consequence  ?  To 
what  would  we  commit  ourselves  ?  If  a  petition  should  be 
presented,  praying  the  abolition  of  the  constitution  (which 
we  are  all  bound  by  our  oaths  to  protect),  according  to  this 
abominable  doctrine,  it  must  be  received.  So  if  it  prayed 
the  abolition  of  the  Decalogue,  or  of  the  Bible  itself.  I  go. 
further.  If  the  abolition  societies  should  be  converted  into 
a  body  of  atheists,  and  should  ask  the  passage  of  a  law  de- 
nying the  existence  of  the  Almighty  Being  above  us,  the 
Creator  of  all,  according  to  this  blasphemous  doctrine,  we 
would  be  bound  to  receive  the  petition — to  take  jurisdiction 
of  it.  I  ask  the  Senators  from  Tennessee  and  Pennsylvania 
(Mr.  Grundy  and  Mr.  Buchanan),  would  they  vote  to  receive 
such  a  petition  ?  I  wait  not  an  answer.  They  would  instantly 
reject  it  with  loathing.  What,  then,  becomes  of  the  unlim- 
ited, unqualified,  and  universal  obligation  to  receive  petitions, 
which  they  so  strenuously  maintain,  and  to  which  they  are 
prepared  to  sacrifice  the  constitutional  rights  of  this  body  ? 
I  shall  now  descend  from  these  hypothetical  cases,  to  the 
particular  question  before  the  Senate — What,  then,  must  be 
the  consequences  of  receiving  this  petition,  on  the  principle 
VOL.  n. — 31 


482  SPEECHES. 

that  we  are  bound  to  receive  it,  and  all  similar  petitions, 
whenever  presented  ?  I  have  considered  this  question  calm- 
ly in  all  its  bearings,  and  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  that, 
to  receive,  would  be  to  yield  to  the  abolitionists  all  that  the 
most  sanguine  could  for  the  present  hope,  and  to  abandon  all 
the  outworks  upon  which  we  of  the  South  rely  for  our  de- 
fenpe  against  their  attacks  here. 

one  can  believe  that  the  fanatics,  who  have  flooded 
and  the  other  House  with  their  petitions,  entertain  the 
^  j\  slightest  hope  that  Congress  would  pass  a  law,  at  this  time, 
to  abolish  slavery  in  this  District.  Infatuated  as  they  are, 
they  must  see  that  public  opinion  at  the  North  is  not  yet 
prepared  for  so  decisive  a  step,  and  that  seriously  to  attempt 
it  now  would  be  fatal  to  their  cause.  Whajt,  then,  do  they 
hope  ?  What,  but  that  Congress  should  take  jurisdiction  of 
the  subject  of  abolishing  slavery — should  throw  open  to  the 
abolitionists  the  halls  of  legislation,  and  enable  them  to  es- 
tablish a  permanent  position  within  their  walls,  from  which 
hereafter  to  carry  on  their  operations  against  the  institutions 
of  the  slaveholding  States  ?  If  we  receive  this  petition,  all 
these  advantages  will  be  realized  to  them  to  the  fullest  ex- 
tent. Permanent  jurisdiction  would  be  assumed  over  the 
subject  of  slavery,  not  only  in  this  District,  but  in  the  States 
themselves,  whenever  the  abolitionists  might  choose  to  ask 
Congress,  by  sending  their  petitions  here,  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  States.  I  We  would  be  bound  to  receive 
such  petitions,  and,  by  receiving,  would  be  fairly  pledged  to 
deliberate  and  decide  on  them.  Having  succeeded  in  this 
point,  a  most  favorable  position  would  be  gained.  The  cen- 
tre of  operations  would  be  transferred  from  Nassau  Hall  to 
the  Halls  of  Congress.  To  this  common  centre  the  incendi- 
ary publications  of  the  abolitionists  would  flow,  in  the  form 
of  petitions,  to  be  received  and  preserved  among  the  pubh'c 
records./XSere  the  subject  of  abolition  would  be  agitated 
session  after  session,  and  from  hence  the  assaults  on  the  pro- 


SPEECHES.  483 

perty  and  institutions  of  the  people  of  the  slaveholding  States 
would  be  disseminated,  in  the  guise  of  speeches,  over  the 
whole  UnionX 

Such  would  be  the  advantages  yielded  to  the  abolitionists. 
In  proportion  to  their  gain  would  be  our  loss.  What  would 
be  yielded  to  them  would  be  taken  from  us.  Our  true 
position — that  which  is  indispensable  to  our  defence  here,  is, 
that  Congress  has  no  legitimate  jurisdiction  over  the  subject 
of  slavery  either  here  or  elsewhere.  The  reception  of  this 
petition  surrenders  this  commanding  position ;  yields  the 
question  of  jurisdiction,  so  important  to  the  cause  of  abolition 
and  so  injurious  to  us  ;  compels  us  to  sit  in  silence  to  wit- 
ness the  assaults  on  our  character  and  institutions,  or  to 
engage  in  an  endless  contest  in  their  defence.  Such  a  con- 
test is  beyond  mortal  endurance.  We  must  in  the  end  be 
humbled,  degraded,  broken  down,  and  worn  out. 

The  Senators  from  the  slaveholding  States,  who,  most 
unfortunately,  have  committed  themselves  to  vote  for  receiv- 
ing these  incendiary  petitions,  tell  us  that  whenever  the 
attempt  shall,  be  made  to  abolish  slavery  they  will  join  with 
us  to  repel  it/  I  doubt  not  the  sincerity  of  their  declaration. 
We  all  have  a  common  interest,  and  they  cannot  betray 
ours  without  betraying,  at  the  same  time,  their  own.  But 
I  announce  to  them  that  they  are  now  called  on  to  redeem 
their  pledge,  ^fe_^€2^...&..iiix>&-&«9)$^flm&  The  work 
is  going  on^daily^and  hourly.  The  war  is  waged,  not  only 
inTEe  most  dangerous  manner,  but  in  the  only  manner  that 
it  canTe  waged.  Do  they  expect  that  the  abolitionists  will 
resort  to  arms,  and  commence  a  crusade  to  liberate  our  slaves 
by  force  ?  Is  this  what  they  mean  when  they  speak  of  the 
attempt  to  abolish  slavery  ?  If  so,  let  me  tell  our  friends 
of  the  South  who  differ  from  us,  that  the  war  which  the 
abolitionists  wage  against  us  is  of  a  very  different  character, 
and  far  more  effectived  It  is  a  waflJTreligious  andj^tical 
fanaticism,  mingled,  onthe  part  of  the  leadersTwHh  ambition 


484  SPEECHES. 

and  the  love  of  notoriety  —  and  waged,  not  against  our  lives, 
bur^LTcfearacteT."  The  object  Is  toTTHmETe  and  debase  us 
iiToTtr  wn  estimation,  and  that  of  the  world  in  general  ;  to 
pwhlle  they  overthrow  our  domestic 


instrtuTions.  This  is  the  mode  in  which  they  are  attempting 
abolition,  with  such  ample  means  and  untiring  industry  ; 
and  now  is  the  time  for  all  who  are  opposed  to  them  to  meet 
the  attack.  How  can  it  be  successfully  met  ?  This  is  the 
important  question.  There  is  but  one  way  :  we  must  meet 
the  enemy  on  the  frontier  —  on  the  question  of  receiving  ;~3ce 
must  secure  that  important  pass  —  it  is  our  Thermopylae. 
The  power^F  resistance,  by  an  universal  law  of  nature,  is  on 
the  tMtj.ui.iui1;  —  Break  through  the  shell  —  penetrate  tfte~crust, 
and  there  is  no  resistance  within.  In  the  present  contest, 
the  question  on  receiving"  constitutes  our  frontier,  it  is  the 
firsf^the  exterior  question,  tha1njioTeTS"and  protects  all  the 
others.  Let  it  be  penetrated  by  receiving  this  petition,  and 
not  a  point  of^  resistance  can  bo  found  within,  as  far  as  this 
Government  is  concerned.  If  we  cannot  maintain  ourselves 
there,  we  cannot  on  any  interior  position.  Of  all  the  ques- 
tions that  can  be  raised,  there  is  not  one  onTwhich  we  can 
rally^n  ground  more  tenable  for  ourselves,  or  more  untenable 
forjmr  opponents,  not  excepting  the  ultimate  question  of 
abolition  in  the  States.  For  our  right  to  reject  this  petition 
is  as  clear  and  unquestionable  as  that  Congress  has  no  right 
to  abolish  slavery  in  the  States^" 

Such  is  the  importance  of  taking  our  stand  immovably  on 
the  question  now  before  us.  /Such  are  the  advantages  that 
we  of  the  South  would  sacrifice,  and  the  abolitionists  would 
gain,  were  we  to  surrender  that  important  position  by  re- 
ceiving this  petition.  What  motives  have  we  for  making 
so  great  a  sacrifice  ?  What  advantages  can  we  hope  to  gain 
that  would  justify  us  ? 

We  are  told  of  the  great  advantages  of  a  strong  majority. 
I  acknowledge  it  in  a  good  cause,  and  on  sound  principles. 


SPEECHES.  485 

I  feel  in  the  present  instance  how  much  our  cause  would  be 
strengthened  by  a  strong  and  decided  majority  for  the  rejec- 
tion of  these  incendiary  petitions.  If  any  thing  we  could 
do  here  could  arrest  the  progress  of  the  abolitionists,  it  would 
be  such  a  rejection.  But  as  advantageous  as  would  be  a 
strong  majority  on  sound  principles,  it  is  in  the  same  degree 
dangerous  when  on  the  opposite — when  it  rests  on  improper 
concessions,  and  the  surrender  of  principles — which  would  be 
the  case  at  present.  Such  a  majority  must,  in  this  instance, 
be  purchased  by  concessions  to  the  abolitionists,  and  a  sur- 
render, on  our  part,  that  would  demolish  all  our  outworks, 
give  up  all  our  strong  positions,  and  open  all  the  passages  to 
the  free  admission  of  our  enemies.  It  is  only  on  this  condi- 
tion that  we  can  hope  to  obtain  such  a  majority — a  majority 
which  must  be  gathered  together  from  all  sides,  and  enter- 
taining every  variety  of  opinion.  To  rally  such  a  majority, 
the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  has  fallen  on  the  device  to 
receive  this  petition,  and  immediately  reject  it,  without  con- 
sideration or  reflection.  To  my  mind  the  movement  looks 
like  a  trick — a  mere  piece  of  artifice  to  juggle  and  deceive. 
I  intend  no  disrespect  to  the  Senator.  I  doubt  not  his  in- 
tention is  good,  and  believe  his  feelings  are  with  us ;  but 
I  must  say  that  the  course  he  has  intimated,  is,  in  my  opin- 
ion, the  worst  possible  for  the  slaveholding  States.  It  sur- 
renders all  to  the  abolitionists,  and  gives  nothing,  in  turn, 
that  would  be  of  the  least  advantage  to  us.  Let  the  majority 
for  the  course  he  indicates  be  ever  so  strong,  can  the  Senator 
hope  that  it  will  make  any  impression  on  the  abolitionists  ? 
Can  he  even  hope  to  maintain  his  position  of  rejecting  their 
petitions  without  consideration,  against  them  ?  Does  he  not 
see  that,  in  assuming  jurisdiction  by  receiving  their  petitions, 
he  gives  an  implied  pledge  to  inquire,  to  deliberate,  and 
decide  on  them  ?  Experience  will  teach  him  that  we  must 
either  refuse  to  receive,  or  go  through.  I  entirely  concur 
with  the  Senator  from  Vermont  (Mr.  Prentiss),  on  that 


486  SPEECHES. 

point.  There  is  no  middle  ground  that  is  tenable,  and  least 
of  all  that  proposed  to  be  occupied  by  the  Senator  from 
Pennsylvania,  and  those  who  act  with  him.  In  the  mean 
time,  the  course  he  proposes  is  calculated  to  lull  the  people 
of  the  slaveholding  States  into  a  false  security,  under  the 
delusive  impression  which  it  is  calculated  to  make,  that  there 
is  more  strength  here  against  the  abolitionists  than  really 
does  exist. 

<^  But  we  are  told  that  the  right  of  petition  is  popular  in 
the  North,  and  that  to  make  an  issue,  however  true,  which 
might  bring  it  in  question,  would  weaken  our  friends  here, 
and  strengthen  the  abolitionists.  I  have  no  doubt  of  the 
kind  feelings  of  our  brethren  from  the  North  on  this  floor ; 
but  I  clearly  see  that  while  we  have  their  feelings  in  our 
favor,  their  constituents,  right  or  wrong,  will  have  their  votes, 
however  we  may  be  affected.  But  I  assure  our  friends  that 
we  would  not  do  any  thing,  willingly,  which  would  weaken 
them  at  home  ;  and,  if  we  could  be  assured  that,  by  yielding 
to  their  wishes  the  right  of  receiving  petitions,  they  would 
be  able  to  arrest,  permanently,  the  progress  of  the  abolition- 
ists, we  then  might  be  induced  to  yield  ;  but  nothing  short 
of  the  certainty  of  permanent  security  can  induce  us  to  yield 
an  inch.  If  to  maintain  our  rights  must  increase  the  abo- 
litionists, be  it  so.  I  would  at  no  period  make  the  least 
sacrifice  of  principle  for  any  temporary  advantage,  and  much 
less  at  the  present.  If  there  must  be  an  issue,  now  is  our 
time.  We  never  can  be  more  united  or  better  prepared  for 
the  struggle  ;  and  I,  for  one,  would  much  rather  meet  the 
danger  now,  than  turn  it  over  to  those  who  are  to  come 
after  us. 

But  putting  these  views  aside,  it  seems  to  me,  taking  a 
general  view  of  the  subject,  that  the  course  intimated  by  the 
Senator  from  Pennsylvania  is  radically  wrong,  and  must  end 
in  disappointment.  The  attempt  to  unite  all  must,  as  it 
usually  does,  terminate  in  division  and  distraction.  It  will 


SPEECHES.  487 

divide  the  South  on  the  question  of  receiving,  and  the  North 
on  that  of  rejection,  with  a  mutual  weakening  of  both.\~I 
already  see  indications  of  division  among  the  Northern  gentle- 
men on  this  floor,  even  in  this  stage  of  the  question.  A  division 
among  them  would  give  a  great  impulse  to  the  cause  of  aboli- 
tion. Whatever  position  the  parties  may  take,  in  the  event  of 
such  division,  one  or  the  other  would  be  considered  more  or  less 
favorable  to  the  abolition  cause,  which  could  not  fail  to  run 
it  into  the  political  straggles  of  the  two  great  parties  of  the 
North.  With  these  views,  I  hold,  that  the  only  possible  hope 
of  arresting  the  progress  of  the  abolitionists  in  that  quarter, 
is  to  keep  the  two  great  parties  there  united  against  them,  which 
would  be  impossible  if  they  divide  here.  The  course  inti- 
mated by  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  will  effect  a  division 
here,  and,  instead  of  uniting  the  North,  and  thereby  arrest- 
ing the  progress  of  the  abolitionists,  as  he  anticipates,  will 
end  in  division  and  distraction,  and  in  giving  thereby  a  more 
powerful  impulse  to  their  cause.  I  must  say,  before  I  close 
my  remarks  in  this  connection,  that  the  members  from  the 
North,  it  seems  to  me,  are  not  duly  sensible  of  the  deep  in- 
terest which  they  have  in  this  question,  not  only  as  affecting 
the  Union,  but  as  it  relates  immediately  and  directly  to  their 
particular  section.  As  great  as  may  be  our  interest,  theirs 
is  not  less.  If  the  tide  continues  to  roll  on  its  turbid  waves 
of  folly  and  fanaticism,  it  must,  in  the  end,  prostrate  in  the 
North  all  the  institutions  that  uphold  their  peace  and  pros- 
perity, and  ultimately  overwhelm  all  that  is  eminent,  morally 
and  intellectually. 

I  have  now  concluded  what  I  intended  to  say  on  the 
question  immediately  before  the  Senate.  If  I  have  spoken 
earnestly,  it  is  because  I  feel  the  subject  to  be  one  of  the 
deepest  interest.  We  are  about  to  take  the  first  step 
that  must  control  all  our  subsequent  movements.  If  it 
should  be  such  as  I  fear  it  will,  if  we  receive  this  petition, 
and  thereby  establish  the  principle  that  we  are  obliged  to 


488  SPEECHES. 

receive  all  such  petitions  ;  if  we  shall  determine  to  take  per- 
manent jurisdiction  over  the  subject  of  abolition,  whenever 
and  in  whatever  manner  the  abolitionists  may  ask,  either 
here  or  in  the  States,  I  fear  that  the  consequences  will  be 
ultimately  disastrous.  Such  a  course  would  destroy  the  con- 
fidence of  the  people  of  the  slaveholding  States  in  this  Gov- 
ernment. /We  love  anc}.  cherish  the  Union  ;  we  remember 
with  the  kindest  feelings  our  common  origin,  with  pride  our 
common  achievements,  and  fondly  anticipate  the  common 
greatness  and  glory  that  seem  to  await  us ;  but  origin,  achieve- 
ments, and  anticipation  of  coming  greatness  are  to  us  as  no- 
thing, compared  to  this  question.  It  is  to  us  a  vital  ques- 
tion. It  involves  not  only  our  liberty,  but,  what  is  greater 
(if  to  freemen  any  thing  can  be),  existence  itself.  The 
relation  which  now  exists  between  the  two  races  in  the  slave- 
holding  States  has  existed  for  two  centuries.  It  has  grown 
with  our  growth,  and  strengthened  with  our  strength.  It 
has  entered  into  and  modified  all  our  institutions,  civil  and 
political.  None  other  can  be  substituted.  We  will  not, 
cannot  permit  it  to  be  destroyed.  If  we  were  base  enough 
to  do  so,  we  would  be  traitors  to  our  section,  to  ourselves,  our 
families,  and  to  posterity.  It  is  our  anxious  desire  to  protect 
and  preserve  this  relation  by  the  joint  action  of  this  Govern- 
ment and  the  confederated  States  of  the  Union  ;  but  if,  in- 
stead of  closing  the  door — if,  instead  of  denying  all  jurisdic- 
tion and  all  interference  in  this  question,  the  doors  of 
Congress  are  to  be  thrown  open  ;  and  if  we  are  to  be  exposed 
here,  in  the  heart  of  the  Union,  to  endless  attacks  on  our 
rights,  our  character,  and  our  institutions ;  if  the  other 
States  are  to  stand  and  look  on  without  attempting  to  sup- 
press these  attacks,  originating  within  their  borders ;  and, 
finally,  if  this  is  to  be  our  fixed  and  permanent  condition,  as 
members  of  this  Confederacy,  we  will  then  be  compelled  to 
turn  our  eyes  on  ourselv^J  Come  what  will,  should  it  cost 
every  drop  of  blood,  and  every  cent  of  property,  we  must 


SPEECHES.  489 

defend  ourselves  ;  and  if  compelled,  we  would  stand  justified 
by  all  laws,  human  and  divine/ 

If  I  feel  alarm,  it  is  not  for  ourselves,  but  the  Union^ 
and  the  institutions  of  the  country — to  which  I  have  ever 
been  devotedly  attached,  however  calumniated  and  slandered. 
Few  have  made  greater  sacrifices  to  maintain  them,  and  no 
one  is  more  anxious  to  perpetuate  them  to  the  latest  genera- 
tion ;  but  they  can  and  ought  to  be  perpetuated  only  on  tl 
condition  that  they  fulfil  the  great  objects  for  which 
were  created — the  liberty  and  protection  of  these  States. 

As  for  ourselves,  I  feel  no  apprehension.  I  know,  to/the 
fullest  extent,  the  magnitude  of  the  danger  that  surrounds 
us.  I  am  not  disposed  to  under-estimate  it.  My  colleague 
has  painted  it  truly.  But,  as  great  as  is  the  danger,  we 
have  nothing  to  fear  if  true  to  ourselves.  We  have  many 
and  great  resources ;  a  numerous,  intelligent,  and  brave 
population  ;  great  and  valuable  staples  ;  ample  fiscal  means  ; 
unity  of  feeling  and  interest,  and  an  entire  exemption  from 
those  dangers  originating  in  a  conflict  between  labor  and 
capital,  which  at  this  time  threatens  so  much  danger  to 
constitutional  governments.  To  these  may  be  added  that 
we  would  act  under  an  imperious  necessity.  There  would  be 
to  us  but  one  alternative — to  triumph  or  perish  as  a  people. 
We  would  stand  alone,  compelled  to  defend  life,  character, 
and  institutions.  A  necessity  so  stern  and  imperious  would 
develop  to  the  full  all  the  great  qualities  of  our  nature, 
mental  and  moral,  requisite  for  defence — intelligence,  forti- 
tude, courage,  and  patriotism ;  and  these,  with  our  ample 
means,  and  our  admirable  materials  for  the  construction  of 
durable  free  States,  would  insure  security,  liberty,  and  re- 
nown. 

^"With  these  impressions,  I  ask  neither  sympathy  nor  com- 
passio'nfor  the  slaveholding  States.     We  can  take  "care  of 
ourselves.     It  is  not  we,  but  the  Union  which  is  in  danger^) 
It  is  that  which  demands  our  care — demands  that  the  agita- 


490  SPEECHES. 

tion  of  this  question  shall  cease  here — that  you  shall  refuse 
to  receive  these  petitions,  and  decline  all  jurisdiction  over  the 
subject  of  abolition,  in  every  form  and  shape.  It  is  only  on 
these  terms  that  the  Union  can  be  safe.  We  cannot  remain 
here  in  an  endless  struggle  in  defence  of  our  character,  our 
property,  and  institutions. 

I  shall  now,  in  conclusion,  make  a  single  remark,  as  to 
the  course  I  shall  feel  myself  compelled  to  pursue,  should  the 
Senate,  by  receiving  this  petition,  determine  to  entertain 
jurisdiction  over  the  question  of  abolition.  Thinking  as  I 
do,  I  can  perform  no  act  that  would  countenance  so  danger- 
ous an  assumption ;  and  as  a  participation  in  the  subsequent 
proceedings  on  this  petition,  should  it  unfortunately  be  re- 
ceived, might  be  so  construed,  in  that  event  I  shall  feel  my- 
self constrained  to  decline  such  participation,  and  to  leave 
the  responsibility  wholly  on  those  who  may  assume  it. 


EEMAKKS 

On  the  Kesolution  providing  for  the  safe-keeping  of 
the  Public  Eecords,  made  in  the  Senate  March 
26th,  1836. 

[!N  Senate  March  25th,  1836.  The  following  resolution  submit- 
ted yesterday,  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  was  taken  up  for  consideration. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  instructed  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  providing  proper  measures  for  the  safe- 
keeping of  the  journals  of  the  two  Houses  and  other  public  records, 
and  of  protecting  them  by  other  legal  enactments  from  being  mutilat- 
ed, obliterated,  erased,  defaced,  expunged,  disfigured,  altered,  or  other- 
wise destroyed  or  injured.] 

MB.  CALHOTJN  observed :  It  had  been  said  that  there  was 


SPEECHES.  491 

no  evil  under  the  sun  without  a  remedy  ;  and  that  the  truth 
of  the  remark  was  very  strongly  illustrated  in  the  case  which 
occasioned  the  introduction  of  this  resolution.  Unconstitu- 
tional and  odious  as  was  the  attempt  that  had  been  made  to 
expunge  the  recorded  proceedings  of  this  body,  it  had  caused 
its  attention  to  be  turned  to  the  unprotected  state  of  the 
public  records.  He  had  entered  into  a  diligent  examination 
of  the  laws,  to  see  if  there  were  any  legal  enactments  for  the 
protection  of  the  public  journals,  and  had  found  that,  with  a 
slight  exception  in  one  unimportant  particular,  there  was  no- 
thing to  protect  them  from  being  expunged,  obliterated,  de- 
faced or  destroyed.  This  was  a  state  of  things  which  he 
presumed  no  Senator  would  wish  to  continue.  As  it  now  was, 
any  individual,  whether  the  public  records  were  in  his  custody 
or  not,  might  deface  or  destroy  them — however  important  to 
the  country — with  impunity.  A  leaf  might  be  torn  out,  or 
the  record  might  be  disfigured  or  defaced,  and  no  punishment 
would  follow.  Setting  aside  the  constitutional  injunction  to 
preserve  a  correct  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  two 
Houses,  the  importance  of  some  law  of  the  kind  must  be 
evident.  These  public  records  were  the  only  authentic  ac- 
counts of  the  history  of  this  Government  in  all  its  branches 
— legislative,  judicial  and  executive.  If  to  this  it  be  added, 
that  they  involve  the  important  interests  of  individuals,  there 
was  the  most  powerful  obligation  on  both  Houses  of  Congress  to 
preserve  them  from  injury,  and  to  keep  them.  Yes,  sir,  said  he, 
to  keep  them ;  for,  in  spite  of  the  sophistry  used  to  obscure  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  to  keep  them  means  to  preserve  them 
from  injury.  There  was  no  word  in  the  English  language  less 
susceptible  of  doubtful  construction,  than  the  word  "  keep."  It 
implied,  not  only  to  record  their  proceedings  in  their  journals, 
but  to  preserve  them.  It  would  be  in  vain  that  the  constitution 
required  them  to  record  their  proceedings,  if  it  did  not  also  re- 
quire them  to  protect  and  preserve  them  from  injury.  Was  the 
injunction  in  the  constitution  merely  for  the  childish  purpose 


492  SPEECHES. 

that  they  should  record  their  proceedings  that  they  might  be 
afterwards  thrown  away,  or  obliterated,  defaced  or  disfigured  ? 
No — it  was  that  they  might  go  down  to  the  latest  posterity, 
as  a  faithful  and  authentic  history  of  the  times.  These 
meanings  of  the  word  "  keep,"  as  used  in  the  constitution, — 
to  record,  to  preserve,  to  protect, — were  enforced  on  them  by 
the  sacred  obligation  of  an  oath.  He  knew  that  this  obli- 
gation could  not  prevent  the  Senate  from  passing  the  resolu- 
tion which  had  given  rise  to  his  motion ;  but  the  Senate 
could  not  perform  the  act  of  obliteration — it  must  be  per- 
formed by  some  individual  under  their  order ;  and  if  they 
passed  an  act  making  it  penal  to  deface,  destroy,  or  obliterate 
the  journals,  the  individual  who  did  it  would  be  subject  to 
its  penalties.  Sir,  said  Mr.  C.,  we  can  give  no  dispensation 
to  any  one  to  violate  the  constitution.  If  he  had  given  the 
true  construction  to  the  word  " keep"  no  order  of  this  body, 
in  any  shape  or  form,  could  exempt  the  Secretary  from  the 
sacred  obligations  of  his  oath ;  and  if  the  order  should  be 
given  to  him  to  deface  or  obliterate  the  journals,  he  would 
have  to  turn  his  eyes  to  the  constitution,  which  he  has  sworn 
not  to  violate.  He  thought  that  no  Secretary  of  the  body 
would  ever  dare  to  violate  his  oath,  and  the  obligations  im- 
posed by  the  constitution,  by  obliterating  or  defacing  the 
public  records.  He  had  but  little  fear  for  the  present  Secre- 
tary ;  but  he  knew  not  who  might  fill  the  office  hereafter — 
and  who,  influenced  by  the  force  of  party  discipline,  might 
be  willing  to  plead  the  order  of  a  majority  of  the  body,  tc 
justify  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 

The  framers  of  the  constitution,  in  putting  in  the  provi- 
sion that  the  journals  should  be  kept,  foresaw  the  danger 
that  might  threaten  their  preservation,  from  party  feelings, 
and  intended  to  provide  against  it.  Now,  he  wished  to  go 
one  step  further — to  sustain  the  constitution — to  make  it 
penal  in  any  one,  whether  ordered  by  this  body  or  otherwise, 
to  obliterate  or  disfigure  the  public  records.  It  is  in  vain, 


SPEECHES.  493 

said  Mr.  C.,  for  us  to  suppose  that  we  have  the  slightest  pro- 
perty in  these  journals.  They  are  called,  it  is  true,  our  jour- 
nals ; — but  they  are  the  records  of  what  we  do,  and  are  not 
our  property,  but  the  property  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  We  are  sent  here,  continued  Mr.  C.,  among  other 
things,  to  preserve  those  precious  records  of  our  history 
from  being  obliterated,  disfigured,  or  destroyed  ;  and  we  have 
no  more  property  in  them  than  we  have  in  the  records  of  the 
other  House.  Does  it  make  it  a  less  heinous  offence  in  us,  ask- 
ed Mr.  C.,  to  destroy  these  records,  because  we  are  their  guar- 
dians ?  On  the  contrary,  the  crime  would  be  greater ;  be- 
cause they  were  intrusted  to  our  guardianship.  As  well 
might  the  guardian  waste  or  destroy  the  property  of  his  ward, 
under  the  plea  of  his  guardianship.  In  every  view  he  could  take 
of  the  subject,  whether  in  regard  to  the  injunctions  of  the 
constitution,  the  obligations  of  their  oaths,  or  the  importance 
of  preserving  in  their  utmost  purity,  the  authentic  originals  of 
the  history  of  the  country — there  seemed  to  be  an  imperious 
obligation  on  them  to  provide  such  legal  enactments  for  the 
protection  and  preservation,  not  only  of  the  journals  of  the 
two  Houses  of  Congress,  but  also  of  the  other  public  records, 
as,  he  regretted  to  say,  were  not  now  to  be  found  on  the  sta- 
tute book.  It  was  with  these  views  he  had  submitted  his 
resolution ;  and  he  hoped  the  committee  would  give  to  it 
its  most  serious  consideration. 

[Here  Mr.  Niles  made  a  few  remarks  in  opposition,  declaring  he 
could  not  perceive  why,  if  the  constitution  required  the  two  Houses  to 
keep  journals  of  their  proceedings,  any  legal  enactments  should  be  ne- 
cessary. To  violate  the  constitution  was  an  offence,  a  crime,  on  gen- 
eral principles — on  the  principles  of  the  common  law.] 

Mr.  Calhoun  said :  In  reply  to  the  Senator  from  Con- 
necticut, it  is  only  necessary  to  state,  that  it  has  been  long 
since  established,  that  the  common  law  forms  no  part  of  the 
Laws  of  the  Union.  In  reply  to  another  part  of  the  Senator's 


494  SPEECHES. 

argument,  lie  would  observe  that  there  were  other  persons, 
into  whose  possession  the  journals  might  fall,  who  could  in- 
jure or  deface  them  without  incurring  any  punishment.  They 
saw  the  force  of  party  discipline,  and  how  the  judgment  was 
warped  by  party  feeling.  Attempts  had  been  made  by  the 
most  respectable  men,  and  by  the  legislatures  of  some  of 
the  States,  acting  under  the  force  of  party,  to  mutilate  the 
journal ; — showing  to  what  an  extent  party  feeling  might 
be  carried,  and  the  necessity  of  guarding  against  it.  The 
act  of  mutilation  could  not  be  performed  by  twenty-five  per- 
sons— the  majority  of  the  Senate  ;  it  must  be  performed  by 
one  single  person,  under  the  order  of  the  majority,  and  he 
would  answer  for  it,  if  they  would  pass  a  law  making  it  pe- 
nal to  mutilate  the  public  records,  no  person  would  be  found 
to  plead  the  order  of  the  Senate  in  justification  of  such  an 
act.  My  object,  said  Mr.  C.,  is  to  pass  a  law  containing 
guards  and  checks  against  ourselves — to  prevent  us,  under 
the  influence  of  party  feelings,  from  tampering  with  records 
of  so  sacred  a  character.  The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 
were  all  legal  men,  and  by  giving  their  attention  to  the  sub- 
ject, they  would,  no  doubt,  see  how  necessary  it  was  that 
some  legal  enactments  should  be  framed,  which  should  effec- 
tually sustain  the  particular  provision  in  the  constitution 
in  question. 

[Mr.  Shepley  of  Maine  here  rose  and  objected  to  the  motion, 
chiefly  on  the  ground  that  its  object  was,  indirectly,  to  withdraw  the 
attention  of  the  Senate  from  the  resolution  of  the  Senator  from  Mis- 
souri (Mr.  Benton),  now  pending,  to  expunge  a  record  now  on  the 
journals  of  the  Senate,  to  strike  a  side-blow  at  the  said  resolution. 
He  was  followed  by  Mr.  Benton,  in  his  usual  strain ; — when  Mr.  Clay- 
ton of  Delaware  took  the  floor,  and  spoke  for  some  time,  in  reply  to 
the  imputations  of  Mr.  Benton.  On  his  taking  his  seat,  Mr.  Calhoun 
resumed.] 

This  proposition,  as  had  been  well  remarked  by  the  Sen- 


SPEECHES.  495 

ator  from  Delaware,  was  totally  dissimilar  to  the  resolution 
introduced  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri.  It  proposed  an 
examination,  by  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  into  the 
expediency,  not  only  of  protecting  the  journals  of  the  Sen- 
ate, but  all  other  public  records  ;  and  it  was  designed  to 
protect  them,  not  only  against  the  action  of  this  body,  but 
against  the  action  of  all  persons  whatsoever.  As  it  was,  any 
stranger  might  deface  or  obliterate  the  public  records  with 
perfect  impunity.  It  was  true,  that  the  movement  of  the 
Senator  from  Missouri  was  the  occasion  of  his  offering  this 
resolution  ;  but  this  was  no  reason  why  the  deficiency  he  had 
alluded  to,  should  not  now  be  supplied.  He  wished  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Senate  and  the  public  to  the  subject. 
He  had  no  idea  that  this  resolution  could  arrest  the  one 
offered  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  which  must  come  up 
long  before  it.  His  object  was  a  general  one,  and  applied  to 
all  the  public  records,  as  well  as  to  the  journals  of  the  Senate. 
He  had  no  reference  to  the  resolution  of  the  Senator  from  Mis- 
souri, in  offering  his  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  he  must  say, 
that  he  had  no  idea  the  Senate  had  the  slightest  authority  to 
mutilate  the  journals ;  which  belonged,  not  to  them,  but  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States. 

[After  some  further  remarks  from  Messrs.  Walker  of  Mississippi, 
and  Ewing  of  Ohio,  Mr.  Shepley  moved  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the 
table,  which  was  carried — yeas,  19  ;  nays,  15.] 


496  SPEECHES. 


SPEECH 

On  the  motion  of  Mr.  Porter,  of  Louisiana,  to  recom- 
mit the  Bill  to  establish  the  northern  boundary  of 
of  Ohio,  and  for  the  admission  of  Michigan  into  the 
Union,  delivered  in  the  Senate,  April  2d,  1836. 

[THE  bill  to  establish  the  northern  boundary  of  Ohio,  and  for  the 
admission  of  Michigan  into  the  Union,  came  up  in  the  Senate  on  its 
third  reading. 

Mr.  Porter  moved  to  recommit  the  bill  for  the  purpose  of  amend- 
ing it,  on  the  subject  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  more  effectually  to 
secure  the  rights  of  the  United  States  to  the  public  lands  within  the 
new  State. 

On  this  motion  a  debate  ensued,  in  which  it  was  supported  by 
Messrs.  Porter,  Calhoun,  Crittenden,  Black,  Clay,  White,  Mangum 
and  Clayton,  and  opposed  by  Messrs.  Walker,  Wright,  and  Benton ; 
and  Mr.  Preston,  though  in  favor  of  the  recommitment,  opposed  the 
principle  of  interfering  with  the  right  of  the  new  State  to  settle  the 
qualification  of  its  voters.  During  this  debate,  Mr.  Calhoun  said  :] 

I  REGRET  that  my  colleague  has  thought  proper  to  raise 
the  question,  whether  a  State  has  a  right  to  make  an  alien  a 
citizen  of  the  State.  The  question  is  one  of  great  magnitude 
— presented  for  the  first  tune — and  claiming  a  more  full  and 
deliberate  consideration,  than  can  be  bestowed  on  it  now. 
It  is  not  necessarily  involved  in  the  present  question.  The 
point  now  at  issue  is,  not  whether  a  State  or  territory  has  a 
right  to  make  an  alien  a  citizen  ;  but  whether  Congress  has 
a  right  to  prescribe  the  qualifications  of  the  voters  for  mem- 
hftTg_nf  flip,  nrmvftntirm  f,n  form  a  constitution,  preparatory  to 
the  admission  of  a  territory  into  the  Union.  I  presume, 
that  even  my  colleague  will  not  deny  that  Congress  has  the 
right.  The  constitution  confers  on  Congress  the  power  to 


SPEECHES.  497 

govern  the  territories  ;  and,  of  course,  to  prescribe  the  quali- 
fications of  voters  within  them — without  any  restriction 

unless,  indeed,  such  as  the  ordinance  and  the  constitution  may 
enforce — a  power  that  expires  only  when  a  territory  becomes 
a  State.  The  practice  of  the  Government  has  been  in  con- 
formity with  these  views  ;  and  there  is  not  an  instance  of  the 
admission  of  a  territory  into  the  Union,  in  which  Congress 
has  not  prescribed  the  qualifications  of  the  voters  for  members 
of  the  convention  to  form  a  constitution  for  the  government 
of  the  State,  on  its  admission.  The  power  which  Congress 
has  thus  invariably  exercised,  we  claim  to  exercise  on  the 
present  occasion — by  prescribing  who  shall*  be  the  voters  to 
form  the  constitution  for  the  government  of  Michigan,  when 
admitted  into  the  Union.  Michigan  is  not  yet  a  State. 
Her  constitution  is  not  yet  formed.  It  is,  at  best,  but  in  an 
incipient  state — which  can  only  be  consummated  by  comply- 
ing with  the  conditions  which  we  may  prescribe  for  her 
admission.  A  convention  is  to  be  called,  under  this  bill,  to 
agree  to  these  conditions.  On  motion  of  the  Senator  from 
New- York  (Mr.  Wright)  a  provision  was  introduced  into  the 
bill,  giving  the  right  to  the  people  of  the  territory  at  large — 
without  limitation,  or  restriction,  as  to  age,  sex,  color,  or 
citizenship — to  vote  for  the  members  of  the  convention.  The 
Senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  Clay),  while  the  amendment  of 
the  Senator  from  New- York  was  pending,  moved  to  amend 
the  amendment  by  striking  out  people,  and  inserting  free 
white  male  citizens  of  twenty-one  years  of  age — thus  restrict- 
ing the  voters  to  the  free  white  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
in  conformity  with  what  has  been  usual  on  such  occasions. 

Believing  that  Congress  had  the  unquestionable  right  to 
prescribe  the  qualifications  of  voters,  as  proposed  by  the 
Senator  from  Kentucky,  and  that  the  exercise  of  such  right 
does  not  involve,  in  any  degree,  the  question  whether  a  State 
has  a  right  to  confer  on  an  alien  the  rights  of  citizenship, 
I  must  repeat  the  expression  of  my  regret,  that  my  colleague 
VOL.  n. — 32 


498  SPEECHES. 

has  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  raise  a  question  so  novel  and 
important,  when  we  have  so  little  leisure  for  bestowing  on  it 
the  attention  which  it.  deserves.  But,  since  he  considers  its 
decision  as  necessarily  involved  in  the  question  before  us,  I  feel 
it  to  be  my  duty  to  state  the  reasons  why  I  cannot  concur 
with  him  in  opinion. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  follow  my  colleague  and  the 
Senator  from  Kentucky,  in  their  attempt  to  define  or  de- 
scribe a  citizen.  Nothing  is  more  difficult  than  the  defini- 
tion, or  even  description,  of  so  complex  an  idea  ;  and  hence, 
all  arguments  resting  on  one  definition  in  such  cases,  almost 
necessarily  lead  to  uncertainty  and  doubt.  But  though  we 
may  not  be  able  to  say,  with  precision,  what  a  citizen  is,  we 
may  say,  with  the  utmost  certainty,  what  he  is  not.  He 
is  not  an  alien.  Alien  and  citizen  are  correlative  terms, 
and  stand  in  contradistinction  to  each  other.  They,  of 
course,  cannot  coexist.  They  are,  in  fact,  so  opposite  in 
their  nature,  that  we  conceive  of  the  one  but  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  other.  Thus  far,  all  must  be  agreed.  My 
next  step  is  not  less  certain. 

The  constitution  confers  on  Congress  the  authority  to 
pass  uniform  laws  of  naturalization.  This  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned ;  nor  will  it  be,  that  the  effect  of  naturalization  is  to 
remove  alienage.  I  am  not  certain  that  the  word  is  a  legiti- 
mate one. 

[Mr.  Preston  said,  in  a  low  tone,  it  was.] 

My  colleague  says  it  is.  His  authority  is  high  on  such 
questions  ;  and  with  it,  I  feel  myself  at  liberty  to  use  the 
word.  To  remove  alienage,  is  simply  to  put  the  foreigner  in 
the  condition  of  a  native  born.  To  this  extent  the  act  of 
naturalization  goes,  and  no  further. 

The  next  position  I  assume  is  no  less  certain :  that, 
when  Congress  has  exercised  its  authority  by  passing  a  uni- 
form law  of  naturalization  (as  it  has),  it  excludes  the  right 


SPEECHES.  499 

of  exercising  a  similar  authority  on  the  part  of  the  State.  To 
suppose  that  the  States  could  pass  naturalization  acts  of  their 
own,  after  Congress  had  passed  an  uniform  law  of  naturaliza- 
tion, would  be  to  make  the  provision  of  the  constitution  nu- 
gatory. I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  dwell  on  this  point, 
as  I  understood  my  colleague  as  acquiescing  in  its  cor- 
rectness. 

I  am  now  prepared  to  decide  the  question  which  my 
colleague  has  raised.  I  have  shown  that  a  citizen  is  not  an 
alien,  and  that  alienage  is  an  insuperable  barrier,  till 
removed,  to  citizenship ;  and  that  it  can  only  be  removed 
by  complying  with  the  act  of  Congress.  It  follows,  of 
course,  that  a  State  cannot,  of  its  own  authority,  make 
an  alien  a  citizen  without  such  compliance.  To  suppose 
it  can,  involves,  in  my  opinion,  a  confusion  of  ideas,  which 
must  lead  to  innumerable  absurdities  and  contradictions.  I 
propose  to  notice  but  a  few.  In  fact,  the  discussion  has 
come  on  so  unexpectedly,  and  has  been  urged  on  so  pre- 
cipitately, through  the  force  of  party  discipline,  that  little 
leisure  has  been  afforded  to  trace  to  their  consequences  the 
many  novel  and  dangerous  principles  involved  in  the  bill.  I, 
in  particular,  have  not  had  due  time  for  reflection,  which  I 
exceedingly  regret.  Attendance  on  the  sick  bed  of  a  friend 
drew  off  my  attention  till  yesterday ;  when,  for  the  first 
time,  I  turned  my  thoughts  on  its  provisions.  The  nu- 
merous objections  which  it  presented,  and  the  many  and  im- 
portant amendments  which  wete  moved  to  correct  them,  in 
rapid  succession,  until  a  late  hour  of  the  night,  allowed  but 
little  time  for  reflection.  Seeing  that  the  majority  had  pre- 
determined to  pass  the  bill,  with  all  its  faults,  I  retired, 
when  I  found  my  presence  could  no  longer  be  of  any 
service,  and  remained  ignorant  that  the  Senate  had  rescinded 
the  order  to  adjourn  over  till  Monday,  until  a  short  time  be- 
fore its  meeting  this  morning  :  so  that  I  came  here  wholly 
unprepared  to  discuss  this  and  the  other  important  questions 


500  SPEECHES. 

involved  in  the  bill.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  must  not 
be  supposed  that,  in  pointing  out  the  few  instances  of  what 
appear  to  me  the  absurdities  and  contradictions  necessarily 
resulting  from  the  principle  against  which  I  contend,  there 
are  not  many  others,  equally  striking.  I  but  suggest  those 
which  first  occurred  to  me. 

Whatever  difference  of  opinion  there  may  be  as  to  what 
other  rights  appertain  to  a  citizen,  all  must  at  least  agree,  that 
he  has  the  right  to  petition,  and  also  to  claim  the  protection 
of  his  Government.  These  belong  to  him  as  a  member  of  the 
body  politic, — and  the  possession  of  them,  is  what  separates 
citizens  of  the  lowest  condition  from  aliens  and  slaves.  To 
suppose,  that  a  State  can  make  an  alien  a  citizen  of  the  State — 
or,  to  present  the  question  more  specifically,  can  confer  on  him 
the  right  of  voting,  would  involve  the  absurdity  of  giving  him 
a  direct  and  immediate  control  over  the  action  of  the  Gene- 
ral Government,  from  which  he  has  no  right  to  claim  the  protec- 
tion, and  to  which  he  has  no  right  to  present  a  petition.  That 
the  full  force  of  the  absurdity  may  be  felt,  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind,  that  every  department  of  the  General  Government 
is  either  directly  or  indirectly  under  the  control  of  the  voters 
in  the  several  States.  The  constitution  wisely  provides,  that 
the  voters  for  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  legislatures 
in  the  several  States,  shall  vote  for  the  members  of  the  House 
of  Eepresentatives, — and,  as  the  members  of  this  body  are 
chosen  by  the  legislatures  of  the  States,  and  the  Presiden- 
tial electors  either  by  the  legislatures,  or  voters  in  the  several 
States,  it  follows,  as  I  have  stated,  that  the  action  of  the 
General  Government  is  either  directly  or  indirectly  under  the 
control  of  the  voters  in  the  several  States.  Now,  admit,  that 
a  State  may  confer  the  right  of  voting  on  all  aliens,  and  it 
will  follow  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  we  might  have 
among  our  constituents,  persons  who  have  not  the  right  to 
claim  the  protection  of  the  Government,  or  to  present  a  pe- 
tition to  it.  I  would  ask  my  colleague,  if  he  would  willingly 


SPEECHES.  501 

bear  the  relation  of  representative  to  those,  who  could  not 
claim  his  aid,  as  Senator,  to  protect  them  from  oppression,  or 
to  present  a  petition  through  him  to  the  Senate,  praying  for 
a  redress  of  grievance  ? — and  yet  such  might  be  his  condition 
on  the  principle  for  which  he  contends. 

But  a  still  greater  difficulty  remains.  Suppose  a  war 
should  be  declared  between  the  United  States  and  the  coun- 
try to  which  the  alien  belongs — suppose,  for  instance,  that 
South  Carolina  should  confer  the  right  of  voting  on  alien  sub- 
jects of  Great  Britain  residing  within  her  limits,  and  that  war 
should  be  declared  between  the  two  countries  ;  what,  in  such 
event,  would  be  the  condition  of  that  portion  of  our  voters  ? 
They,  as  alien  enemies,  would  be  liable  to  be  seized  under  the 
laws  of  Congress,  and  to  have  their  goods  confiscated  and 
themselves  imprisoned,  or  sent  out  of  the  country.  The  prin- 
ciple that  leads  to  such  consequences  cannot  be  true  ;  and  I 
venture  nothing  in  asserting,  that  Carolina,  at  least,  will  never 
give  it  her  sanction,  or  consent  to  act  on  it.  She  never  will 
assent  to  incorporate,  as  members  of  her  body  politic,  those 
who  might  be  placed  in  so  degraded  a  condition  and  so  com- 
pletely under  the  control  of  the  General  Government. 

But  let  us  pass  from  these  (as  it  appears  to  me  conclu- 
sive) views,  and  inquire  what  were  the  objects  of  the  consti- 
tution in  conferring  on  Congress  the  authority  of  passing 
uniform  laws  of  naturalization — from  which,  if  I  mistake  not, 
arguments  not  less  conclusive  may  be  drawn,  in  support  of 
the  position  for  which  I  contend. 

In  conferring  this  power  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
must  have  had  two  objects  in  view  :  one  to  prevent  compe- 
tition between  the  States  in  holding  out  inducements  for  the 
emigration  of  foreigners, — and  the  other  to  prevent  their  im- 
proper influence  over  the  General  Government,  through  such 
States  as  might  naturalize  foreigners,  and  could  confer  on 
them  the  right  of  exercising  the  elective  franchise,  before  they 
could  be  sufficiently  informed  of  the  nature  of  our  institu- 


502  SPEECHES. 

tions,  or  were  interested  in  their  preservation.  Both  of  these 
objects  would  be  defeated,  if  the  States  may  confer  on  aliens 
the  right  of  voting  and  the  other  privileges  belonging  to 
citizens.  On  that  supposition,  it  would  be  almost  impossible 
to  conceive  what  good  could  be  obtained,  or  evil  prevented  by 
conferring  the  power  on  Congress.  The  power  would  be 
perfectly  nugatory.  A  State  might  hold  out  every  improper 
inducement  to  emigration,  as  freely  as  if  the  power  did  not 
exist ;  and  might  confer  on  the  alien  all  the  political  privileges 
belonging  to  a  native  born  citizen  ; — not  only  to  the  great 
injury  of  the  Government  of  the  State,  but  to  an  improper 
control  over  the  Government  of  the  Union.  To  illustrate 
what  I  have  said, — suppose  the  dominant  party  in  New- York, 
finding  political  power  about  to  depart  from  them,  should,  to 
maintain  their  ascendency,  extend  the  right  of  suffrage  to 
the  thousands  of  aliens  of  every  language  and  from  every 
portion  of  the  world,  that  annually  pour  into  her  great  em- 
porium— how  dee  ly  might  the  destiny  of  the  whole  Union  be 
affected  by  such  a  measure.  It  might,  in  fact,  place  the 
control  over  the  General  Government  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  know  nothing  of  our  institutions  and  are  indifferent  as 
to  the  interests  of  the  country.  New- York  gives  about  one- 
sixth  of  the  electoral  votes  in  the  choice  of  President  and  Vice- 
President ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  her  political  institu- 
tions keep  the  State  nearly  equally  divided  into  two  great 
political  parties.  The  addition  of  a  few  thousand  votes 
either  way  might  turn  the  scale,  and  the  electors  might,  in 
fact,  owe  their  election,  on  the  supposition,  to  the  votes  of 
unnaturalized  foreigners.  The  Presidential  election  might 
depend  on  the  electoral  vote  of  the  State,  and  a  President 
be  chosen  in  reality  by  them  ;  that  is,  they  might  give  us  a 
king — for,  under  the  usurpations  of  the  present  Chief  Magis- 
trate, the  President  is  in  fact  a  king.  I  ask  my  colleague  if 
we  ought  willingly  to  yield  our  assent  to  a  principle  that 
would  lead  to  such  results — and  if  there  be  any  danger  on 


503 

the  side  for  which  I  contend,  comparable  to  those  which  I 
have  stated  ?  I  know  how  sincere  he  is  in  the  truth  of  the 
position,  for  which  he  contends,  and  that  his  opinion  was 
founded  anterior  to  this  discussion.  We  have  rarely  differed 
in  our  views  on  the  questions  which  have  come  before  the 
Senate  ;  and  I  deeply  regret,  as  I  am  sure  he  does,  that  we 
should  differ  on  this  highly  important  subject. 

My  colleague  cites,  in  support  of  his  position,  the  example 
of  Vermont,  North  Carolina,  and,  if  I  recollect  rightly, 
Rhode  Island — under  whose  constitutions  aliens,  it  seems, 
may  vote.  It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  say,  that  their  con- 
stitutions were  adopted  before  the  existence  of  the  General 
Government,  and  that  the  provisions  which  permitted  aliens 
to  vote  constituted  a  portion  of  their  constitutions  when  they 
came  into  the  Union.  North  Carolina  has  since  amended 
hers,  and  limited  the  right  of  voting  to  citizens.  If  Ver- 
mont and  Ehode  Island  have  not  done  the  same,  it  must  be 
attributed  to  that  vis  inertia  which  indisposes  most  States  to 
alter  their  constitutions,  or  to  accidental  omission.  But  we 
have  the  authority  of  the  Senator  from  North  Carolina  (Mr. 
Mangum),  and  also  the  Senator  from  Vermont  (Mr.  Prentiss), 
that  under  the  decision  of  the  courts  of  the  respective  States, 
their  constitutions  have  been  so  construed,  since  they  entered 
the  Union,  as  to  confine  the  right  of  voting  and  holding  lands 
to  citizens  of  the  States,  so  as  to  conform  to  the  principle  for 
which  I  contend.  To  cite  a  case  in  point,  my  colleague 
ought  to  show  that,  under  the  constitution  of  any  State, 
formed  since  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  the  Union, 
the  right  of  voting  has  been  conferred  on  an  alien.  There 
is  not,  I  believe,  an  example  of  the  kind ; — from  which  I 
infer  the  deep  and  universal  conviction  which  has  pervaded 
the  public  mind,  that  a  State  has  no  authority  to  confer  such 
right  ;  and  thus  the  very  example  cited  by  my  colleague, 
serves  but  to  strengthen  instead  of  refuting  the  position 
which  I  seek  to  maintain. 


504  SPEECHES. 

My  colleague  also  cites  the  example  of  Louisiana,  which 
was  admitted  into  the  Union  without  requiring  the  in- 
habitants, at  the  time,  to  conform  to  the  act  of  naturaliza- 
tion. I  must  think  the  instance  is  not  in  point.  That  was 
a  case  of  the  incorporation  of  a  foreign  community,  which 
had  been  acquired  by  treaty,  as  a  member  of  our  con- 
federacy. At  the  time  of  the  acquisition,  they  were  subjects 
of  France,  and  owed  their  allegiance  to  that  government. 
The  treaty  transferred  their  allegiance  to  the  United  States  ; 
and  the  difficulty  of  incorporating  Louisiana  into  the  Union, 
arose,  not  under  the  act  of  naturalization,  but  the  right 
of  acquiring  foreign  possession  by  purchase,  and  the  right  of 
incorporating  such  possessions  into  the  Union.  These  were 
felt,  at  the  time,  to  be  questions  of  great  difficulty.  Mr. 
Jefferson  himself,  under  whose  administration  the  purchase 
was  made,  doubted  the  right,  and  suggested  the  necessity  of 
an  alteration  of  the  constitution  to  meet  the  case  ;  and  if 
the  example  of  the  admission  is  now  to  be  used  to  establish 
the  principle  that  a  State  may  confer  citizenship  on  an  alien, 
we  may  all  live  to  regret  that  the  constitution  was  not  amend- 
ed according  to  the  suggestion.  My  colleague  insists  that,  to 
deny  the  right  for  which  he  contends,  would  be  to  confer 
on  Congress  the  right  of  prescribing  who  should  or  should 
not  be  entitled  to  vote  in  the  State,  and  exercise  the  other 
privileges  belonging  to  citizens  ;  and  portrayed  in  strong  lan- 
guage the  danger  to  the  rights  of  the  States  from  such  au- 
thority. If  his  views  are  correct  in  this  respect,  the  danger 
would,  indeed,  be  imminent ;  but  I  cannot  concur  in  their 
correctness.  Under  the  view  which  I  have  taken,  the  au- 
thority of  Congress  is  limited  to  the  simple  point  of  passing 
uniform  laws  of  naturalization,  or,  as  I  have  shown,  simply 
to  remove  alienage.  To  this  extent  it  may  clearly  go,  un- 
der the  constitution ;  and  "it  is  no  less  clear  that  it  cannot 
go  an  inch  beyond,  without  palpably  transcending  its  powers, 
and  violating  the  constitution.  Every  other  privilege  except 


SPEECHES.  505 

those  which  necessarily  flow  from  the  removal  of  alienage, 
must  be  conferred  by  the  constitution  and  the  authority  of 
the  State.  My  remarks  are,  of  course,  confined  to  the 
States  ;  for,  within  the  territories,  the  authority  of  Congress 
is  as  complete,  in  this  respect,  as  that  of  the  States  within 
their  respective  limits,  with  the  exception  of  such  limi- 
tations as  the  ordinance  to  which  I  have  referred  may 
impose. 

But,  to  pass  to  the  question  immediately  before  us. 
This,  as  I  have  stated,  does  not  involve  the  question  whether 
a  State  can  make  an  alien  a  citizen ;  but  whether  Congress 
has  a  right  to  prescribe  the  qualifications  to  be  possessed  by 
those  who  shall  vote  for  members  of  a  convention  to  form  a 
constitution  for  Michigan.  Reason  and  precedent  concur, 
that  Congress  has  the  right.  It  has,  as  I  have  stated,  been 
exercised  in  every  similar  case.  If  the  right  does  not  exist 
in  Congress,  it  exists  nowhere.  A  territory,  until  it  becomes 
a  State,  is  a  dependent  community,  and  possesses  no  political 
rights  but  what  are  derived  from  the  community  on  which  it 
depends.  Who  shall  or  shall  not  exercise  political  power  ? 
and  what  shall  be  the  qualifications  possessed  by  them  ?  and 
how  they  shall  be  appointed  ?  are  all  questions  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  paramount  community ;  and  in  the  case  under 
consideration,  to  be  determined  by  Congress,  which  has  the 
right,  under  the  constitution,  to  prescribe  all  necessary  rules 
for  the  government  of  the  territories,  not  inconsistent  with 
the  provisions  of  the  constitution.  This  very  bill,  in  fact, 
admits  the  right.  It  prescribes  that  the  people  of  Michigan 
shall  vote  for  the  convention  to  form  her  constitution,  on  be- 
coming a  State.  If  it  belongs  to  the  territory  of  Michigan 
(she  is  not  yet  a  State)  to  determine  who  shall  vote  for  tho 
members  of  the  convention,  this  attempt  on  our  part  to 
designate  who  shall  be  the  voters,  would  be  an  unconsti- 
tutional interference  with  her  right,  and  ought  to  be  ob- 
jected to,  as  such,  by  those  opposed  to  our  views.  But  if, 


506  SPEECHES. 

on  the  other  hand,  the  view  I  take  be  correct,  that  the  right 
belongs  to  Congress,  and  not  to  the  territory,  the  loose, 
vague,  and  indefinite  manner  in  which  the  voters  are  de- 
scribed in  the  bill,  affords  a  decisive  reason  for  its  recom- 
mitment. I  ask,  who  are  the  people  of  Michigan  ?  Taken 
in  the  ordinary  sense,  it  means  every  body,  of  every  age, 
of  every  sex,  of  every  complexion,  white,  black,  or  red, 
aliens  as  well  as  citizens.  Regarded  in  this  light,  to  pass 
this  bill,  would  sanction  the  principle  that  Congress  may 
authorize  an  alien  to  vote,  or  confer  that  high  privilege  on 
the  runaway  slaves  from  Kentucky,  Virginia,  or  elsewhere  ; 
and  thus  elevate  them  to  the  condition  of  citizens,  en- 
joying under  the  constitution  all  the  rights  and  privileges  in 
the  States  of  the  Union  which  appertain  to  citizenship. 
But  my  colleague  says  that  this  must  be  acquiesced  in,  if 
such  should  be  the  case,  as  it  results  from  the  principles  of 
the  constitution.  I  know  we  are  bound  to  submit  to  what- 
ever are  the  provisions  of  that  instrument ;  but  surely  my 
colleague  will  agree  with  me,  that  the  danger  of  such  a  prece- 
dent would  be  great ;  that  the  principles  on  which  it  is 
justified  ought  to  be  clear  and  free  from  all  doubt ;  and  I 
trust  I  have,  at  least,  shown  that  such  is  not  the  fact  in 
this  case. 

But,  we  are  told,  that  the  people  of  Michigan  means,  in 
this  case,  the  qualified  voters.  Why,  then,  was  it  not  so 
expressed?  Why  was  vague  and  general  language  used, 
when  more  certain  and  precise  terms  might  have  been  em- 
ployed ?  But,  I  would  ask,  who  are  the  qualified  voters  ? 
Are  they  those  authorized  to  vote  under  the  existing  laws 
established  for  the  government  of  the  territory  ?  or  are  they 
those  who,  under  the  instrument  called  the  constitution, 
are  authorized  to  vote  ?  Why  leave  so  essential  a  point  in 
so  uncertain  a  condition,  when  we  have  the  power  to  remove 
the  uncertainty  ?  If  it  be  meant  by  the  people  of  Michigan, 
the  qualified  voters  under  her  incipient  constitution  (as  stated 


SPEECHES.  507 

by  the  Senator  from  New- York),  then  are  we  sanctioning 
the  right  of  aliens  to  vote.  Michigan  has  attempted  to 
confer  this  right  on  that  portion  of  her  inhabitants.  She 
has  no  authority  to  confer  such  right  under  the  constitution. 

I  have  conclusively  shown  that  a  State  does  not  possess  it 

much  less  a  Territory,  which  possesses  no  power  except  such 
as  is  conferred  by  Congress.  Congress  has  conferred  no  such 
power  on  Michigan — nor,  indeed,  could  confer  it — as  it  has 
no  authority,  under  the  constitution,  over  the  subject,  except 
to  pass  uniform  laws  of  naturalization. 

But  this  is  only  one  of  the  many  objections  to  the  bill 
before  us  ;  and  I  regret  to  say,  that  the  friends  of  the  mea- 
sure have  not  even  attempted  to  explain  the  many,  and,  to 
my  mind,  decided  objections  which  have  been  urged  against 
it.  Among  others,  it  leaves  open  the  question  of  the  public 
lands — to  be  settled  hereafter  between  Congress  and  the 
State,  contrary  to  all  past  precedents,  and  at  the  imminent 
danger,  ultimately,  of  our  rights  to  the  lands  within  her 
limits.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  an  opposite  course, 
I  understand,  has  been  adopted  in  the  bill  for  the  admission 
of  Arkansas. 

What  has  caused  the  distinction  ?  Why  has  one  measure 
been  meted  out  to  the  one,  and  another  to  the  other  ? 

Here  let  me  express  my  regret  that  this  Bill  for  the 
admission  of  Michigan  has  been  furthered  so  far  ahead  of 
that  for  the  admission  of  Arkansas.  They  ought  to  have 
progressed  together,  and  both  been  sent  to  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives  at  the  same  tune.  We  all  remember  the 
difficulty  of  admitting  Missouri,  and  ought  to  be  admonished 
by  the  example,  to  use  all  possible  precaution  that  a  similar 
difficulty  may  not  occur  in  the  instance  of  Arkansas.  v 

But,  I  again  ask,  why  not  at  once  settle  the  question  o^X. 
the  public  lands  in  Michigan,  as  has  invariably  been  done     s<^ 
on  the  admission  of  other  territories  ?     What  must  be  the     / 
effect  of  leaving  it  open,  but  to  throw  the  State  into  the ' 


508  SPEECHES. 

hands  of  the  dominant  party,  at  this  critical  moment,  when 
the  Presidential  election  is  pending?     It  is  a  misfortunes, 
that  the  power  and   influence  of  the  Executive  over   the  \ 
new  States  are  so  great.     Through  the  medium  of  the  public  / 
lands  they  are  ramified  in  every  direction,  accompanied  by/ 
that   corruption   and   subserviency,  which  are  their  neve 
failing  companions.     It  is  our  duty  to  check,  instead  of  in- 
creasing this  evil ; — but,  instead  of  this,  we  seem  to 
every  opportunity  of  increasing  its  impulse.     In  the  presei 
case,  we  have  placed  Michigan  in  a  position  calculated  to/ 
give  almost  unlimited  control  to  executive  influence,  as  th< 
final  arrangement  in  respect  to  the  public  lands  (a  question 
of  such  deep  importance  to  her)  must  mainly  depend  o; 
that  branch  of  the  Government.     Not  satisfied  with  thisK 
we  have  divested  ourselves  of  the  right  to  determine  whether  ^ 
Michigan   shall   comply  with  the  condition  which  we  are 
about  to  prescribe  for  her  admission,  and  to  confer  it  on/ 
the  President,  with  the  corresponding  diminution  of  our 
fluence  and  the  increase  of  his  over  the  State.    In  our  eager-\ 
ness  to  divest  the  Senate  of  its  power,  we  propose  to  go  still 
further.    In  direct  violation  of  an  express  provision  of  the  con-, 
stitution,  which  confers  on  this  body  the  right  to  judge  of 
the  qualifications  of  its  members,  this  bill  provides  for  tl 
creation  of  two  Senators  by  law,  the  first  instance  of  tl 
kind  ever  attempted  since  the  commencement  of  the  Govei 
ment. 

Such  are  the  leading  objections  to  the  bill.  There  are 
others  of  no  inconsiderable  magnitude.  I  have  never  read 
one,  containing  more  objectionable  provisions,  submitted  to 
the  consideration  of  Congress.  And  yet  it  has  been  urged 
with  as  much  precipitancy  through  the  body,  as  if  its  pro- 
visions were  in  accordance  with  those  which  are  usual  on 
such  occasions.  A  trained  and  despotic  majority  have  re- 
sisted every  attempt  at  amendment,  and  every  effort  to  gain 
time  to  reflect  on  the  extraordinary  and  dangerous  provisions 


SPEECHES.  509 

which  it  contains.  If  there  were  any  reason  for  this  urgency, 
I  would  be  the  last  to  complain  ;  but  none  has  been  assigned, 
or  can  be  imagined.  We  all  agree  that  Michigan  should  be 
admitted,  and  are  anxious  for  the  admission.  I,  individually, 
feel  solicitous  that  the  bill'should  be  so  modified  that  I  can 
reconcile  it  to  my  conscience  and  views  of  expediency  to  vote 
for  it.  For  this  purpose,  I  only  ask  that  it  shall  be  put  in 
the  usual  form ;  and  that  the  numerous  precedents  which 
we  have,  shall  not  be  departed  from.  But  the  majority,  as 
if  anxious  to  force  a  division,  seem  obstinately  bent  on  re- 
fusing compliance  to  so  reasonable  a  request. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Bill  to  prohibit  Deputy-Postmasters  from  re- 
ceiving and  transmitting  through  the  Mail,  to  any 
State,  Territory,  or  District,  certain  Papers  therein 
mentioned,  the  circulation  of  which  is  prohibited 
by  the  Laws  of  said  State,  Territory,  or  District ; 
delivered  in  the  Senate,  April  12, 1836. 

I  AM  aware,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  how  offensive  it  is  to 
speak  of  one's  self;  but  as  the  Senator  from  Georgia  on 
my  right  (Mr.  King)  has  thought  fit  to  impute  to  me  im- 
proper motives,  I  feel  myself  compelled  in  self-defence  to  state 
the  reasons  which  have  governed  my  course  in  reference  to 
the  subject  now  under  consideration.  The  Senator  is  greatly 
mistaken  in  supposing  that  I  am  governed  by  hostility  to 
General  Jackson.  So  far  is  that  from  being  the  fact,  that  I 
came  here  at  the  commencement  of  the  session  with  fixed  and 
settled  principles  on  the  subject  now  under  discussion,  and 


510  SPEECHES. 

which,  in  pursuing  the  course  the  Senator  condemns,  I  have 
but  attempted  to  carry  into  effect. 

As  soon  as  the  subject  of  abolition  began  to  agitate  the 
South,  last  summer,  in  consequence  of  the  transmission  of 
incendiary  publications  through  tfie  mail,  I  saw  at  once  that 
it  would  force  itself  on  the  notice  of  Congress  at  the  present 
session  ;  and  that  it  involved  questions  of  great  delicacy  and 
difficulty.  I  immediately  turned  my  attention  in  consequence 
to  the  subject,  and  after  due  reflection  arrived  at  the  conclu- 
sion, that  Congress  could  exercise  no  direct  power  over  it  ; 
and  that,  if  it  acted  at  all,  the  only  mode  in  which  it  could 
act,  consistently  with  the  constitution  and  the  rights  and 
safety  of  the  slaveholding  States,  would  be  in  the  manner 
proposed  by  this  bill.  I  also  saw  that  there  was  no  incon- 
siderable danger  in  the  excited  state  of  the  feelings  of  the 
South ;  that  the  power,  however  dangerous  and  unconsti- 
tutional, might  be  thoughtlessly  yielded  to  Congress — know- 
ing full  well  how  apt  the  weak  and  timid  are,  in  a  state  of 
excitement  and  alarm,  to  seek  temporary  protection  in  any 
quarter,  regardless  of  after  consequences  ;  and  how  ready  the 
artful  and  designing  ever  are  to  seize  on  such  occasions  to 
extend  and  perpetuate  their  power. 

With  these  impressions  I  arrived  here  at  the  beginning  of 
the  session.  The  President's  Message  was  not  calculated  to 
remove  my  apprehensions.  He  assumed  for  Congress  direct 
power  over  the  subject,  and  that  on  the  broadest,  most  un- 
qualified, and  dangerous  principles.  Knowing  the  influence 
of  his  name — by  reason  of  his  great  patronage  and  the  rigid 
discipline  of  his  party — with  a  large  portion  of  the  country, 
who  have  scarcely  any  other  standard  of  constitution,  politics, 
or  morals,  I  saw  the  full  extent  of  the  danger  of  having 
these  dangerous  principles  reduced  to  practice,  and  I  deter- 
mined at  once  to  use  every  effort  to  prevent  it.  The  Senator 
from  Georgia  will,  of  course,  understand  that  I  do  not  include 
him  in  this  subservient  portion  of  his  party.  So  far  from  it. 


SPEECHES.  511 

I  have  always  considered  him  as  one  of  the  most  independent. 
It  has  been  our  fortune  to  concur  in  opinion  in  relation  to 
most  of  the  important  measures  which  have  heen  agitated 
since  he  became  a  member  of  this  body,  two  years  ago,  at 
the  commencement  of  the  session  during  which  the  deposit 
question  was  agitated.  On  that  important  question,  if  I 
mistake  not,  the  Senator  and  myself  concurred  in  opinion,  at 
least  as  to  its  inexpediency,  and  the  dangerous  consequences 
to  which  it  would  probably  lead.  If  my  memory  serves  me 
well,  we  also  agreed  in  opinion  on  the  connected  subject  of 
the  currency,  which  was  then  incidentally  discussed.  We 
agreed,  too,  on  the  question  of  raising  the  value  of  gold  to  its 
present  standard,  and  in  opposition  to  the  bill  for  the  distri- 
bution of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands,  introduced  by  the 
Senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  Clay).  In  recurring  to  the 
events  of  that  interesting  session,  I  can  remember  but  one 
important  subject  on  which  we  disagreed,  and  that  was  the 
President's  protest.  Passing  to  the  next,  I  find  the  same 
concurrence  of  opinion  on  most  of  the  important  subjects  of 
the  session.  We  agreed  on  the  question  of  executive  pa- 
tronage— on  the  propriety  of  amending  the  constitution  for  a 
temporary  distribution  of  the  surplus  revenue — on  the  sub- 
ject of  regulating  the  deposits — and  in  support  of  the  bill 
for  restricting  the  power  of  the  Executive  in  making  removals 
from  office.  We  also  agreed  on  the  propriety  of  establishing 
branch  mints  in  the  South  and  West — a  subject  not  a  little 
contested  at  the  time. 

Even  at  the  present  session  we  have  not  been  so  unfor- 
tunate as  to  disagree  entirely.  We  have,  it  is  true,  on  the 
question  of  receiving  abolition  petitions,  which  I  regret,  as  I 
must  consider  their  reception,  on  the  principle  on  whieh  they 
were  received,  as  a  surrender  of  the  whole  ground  to  the 
abolitionists,  as  far  as  this  Government  is  concerned.  It  is 
also  true,  that  we  disagreed,  in  part,  in  reference  to  the 
present  subject.  The  Senator  has  divided,  in  relation  to  it, 


512  SPEECHES. 

between  myself  and  General  Jackson.  He  has  given  his 
speech  in  support  of  his  Message,  and  announced  the  inten. 
tion  of  giving  his  vote  in  favor  of  my  bill.  I  certainly  have  no 
right  to  complain  of  this  division.  I  had  rather  have  his  vote 
than  his  speech.  The  one  will  stand  for  ever  on  the  records 
of  the  Senate  (unless  expunged)  in  favor  of  the  bill,  and  the 
important  principles  on  which  it  rests — while  the  other  is 
destined,  at  no  distant  day,  to  oblivion. 

I  now  put  to  the  Senator  from  Georgia  two  short  ques- 
tions. In  the  numerous  and  important  instances  in  which 
we  have  agreed,  I  must  have  been  either  right  or  wrong.  If 
right,  how  could  he  be  so  uncharitable  as  to  attribute  my 
course  to  the  low  and  unworthy  motive  of  inveterate  hostility 
to  General  Jackson  ?  But  if  wrong,  in  what  condition  does 
his  charge  against  me  place  himself,  who  has  concurred  with 
me  in  all  these  measures  ? 

[Here  Mr.  King  disclaimed  the  imputation  of  improper  motives  to 
Mr.  C.] 

I  am  glad  to  hear  the  gentleman's  disclaimer,  said  Mr.  C., 
but  I  certainly  understood  him  as  asserting,  that  such  was 
my  hostility  to  General  Jackson,  that  his  support  of  a  measure 
was  sufficient  to  insure  my  opposition  ;  and  this  he  undertook 
to  illustrate  by  an  anecdote  borrowed  from  O'Connell  and  the 
pig,  which  I  must  tell  the  Senator  was  much  better  suited 
to  the  Irish  mob  to  which  it  was  originally  addressed,  than  to 
the  dignity  of  the  Senate,  where  he  has  repeated  it. 

But  to  return  from  this  long  digression.  I  saw,  as  I  have 
remarked,  there  was  reason  to  apprehend  that  the  principles 
embraced  in  the  Message  might  be  reduced  to  practice — 
principles  which  I  believed  to  be  dangerous  to  the  South, 
and  subversive  of  the  liberty  of  the  press.  The  report  fully 
states  what  those  principles  are,  but  it  may  not  be  useless  to 
refer  to  them  briefly  on  the  present  occasion. 

The  Message  assumed  for  Congress  the  right  of  determin- 
ing what  publications  are  incendiary  and  calculated  to  excite 


SPEECHES.  513 

the  slaves  to  insurrection,  and  of  prohibiting  the  transmission 
of  such  publications  through  the  mail ;  and,  of  course,  it  also 
assumed  the  right  of  deciding  what  are  not  incendiary,  and 
of  enforcing  the  transmission  of  such  through  the  mail.  But 
the  Senator  from  Georgia  denies  this  inference,  and  treats  it 
as  a  monstrous  absurdity.  I  had,  said  Mr.  C.,  considered  it 
so  nearly  intuitive,  that  I  had  not  supposed  it  necessary  in 
the  report  to  add  any  thing  in  illustration  of  its  truth  ;  but 
as  it  has  been  contested  by  the  Senator,  I  will  add,  in  illus- 
tration, a  single  remark. 

The  Senator  will  not  deny  that  the  right  of  determinii 
what  papers  are  incendiary  and  of  preventing  their  circula-N 
tion,  implies  that  Congress  has  jurisdiction  over  the  subject  ; 
that  is,  of  discriminating  as  to  what  papers  ought  or  ought 
not  to  be  transmitted  by  the  mail.  Nor  will  he  deny  that 
Congress  has  a  right,  when  acting  within  its  acknowk 
jurisdiction,  to  enforce  the  execution  of  its  acts  ;  and  yet  the 
admission  of  these  unquestionable  truths  involves  the  conse- 
quence asserted  by  the  report,  and  so  sneered  at  by  the 
Senator.  But  lest  he  should  controvert  so  plain  a  deduc- 
tion,— to  cut  the  matter  short,  I  shall  propound  a  plain 
question  to  him.  He  believes  that  Congress  has  the  right 
to  say  what  papers  are  incendiary,  and  to  prohibit  their  cir- 
culation. Now,  I  ask  him  if  he  does  not  also  believe  that  it 
has  the  right  to  enforce  the  circulation  of  such  as  it  may 
determine  not  to  be  incendiary,  even  against  the  law  of 
Georgia  that  might  prohibit  their  circulation  ?  If  the 
Senator  should  answer  in  the  affirmative,  I  then  would  prove, 
by  his  admission,  the  truth  of  the  inference  for  which  I  con- 
tend, and  which  he  has  pronounced  to  be  so  absurd  :  but  if 
he  should  answer  in  the  negative,  and  deny  that  Congress 
can  enforce  the  circulation  against  the  law  of  the  State,  I 
must  tell  him  he  would  place  himself  in  the  neighborhood 
of  nullification.  He  would  in  fact  go  beyond.  The  denial 
would  assume  the  right  of  nullifying  what  the  Senator  him- 
VOL.  ii. — 33 


514  SPEECHES. 

self  must,  with  his  views,  consider  a  constitutional  act — 
when  nullification  only  assumes  the  right  of  a  State  to 
nullify  an  unconstitutional  act. 

But  the  principle  of  the  Message  goes  still  further.     It 

lines  for  Congress  jurisdiction  over  the  liberty  of  the  press. 
?he  framers  of  the  constitution  (or  rather  those  jealous 
'  patriots  who  refused  to  consent  to  its  adoption  without  amend- 
ments to  guard  against  the  abuse  of  power)  have,  by  the 
first  amended  article,  provided  that  Congress  shall  pass  no 
law  abridging  the  liberty  of  the  press — with  the  view  of 
placing  the  press  beyond  the  control  of  Congressional  legisla- 
tion. But  this  cautious  foresight  would  prove  to  be  vain,  if 
we  should  concede  to  Congress  the  power  which  the  President 
t  assumes  of  discriminating,  in  reference  to  character,  what 
jublications  shall  not  be  transmitted  by  the  mail.  It  would 
place  in  the  hands  of  the  General  Government  an  instrument 
lore  potent  to  control  the  freedom  of  the  press  than  the 

lition  Law  itself,  as  is  fully  established  in  the  report. 

Thus  regarding  the  Message,  the  question  which  pre- 
sented itself  on  its  first  perusal  was,  how  to  prevent  powers 
so  dangerous  and  unconstitutional  from  being  carried  into 
practice  ?  To  permit  the  portion  of  the  Message  relating  to 
the  subject  under  consideration  to  take  its  regular  course, 
and  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Post-Offices  and  Post 
Roads,  would,  I  saw,  be  the  most  certain  way  to  defeat  what 
I  had  in  view.  I  could  not  doubt,  from  the  composition  of 
the  committee,  that  the  report  would  coincide  with  the 
Message  ;  and  that  it  would  be  drawn  up  with  all  that  tact, 
ingenuity,  and  address,  for  which  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee and  the  head  of  the  post-office  department  are  not 
a  little  distinguished.  With  this  impression,  I  could  not 
but  apprehend  that  the  authority  of  the  President,  backed 
by  such  a  report,  would  go  far  to  rivet  in  the  public  mind 
the  dangerous  principles  which  it  was  my  design  to  defeat, 
and  which  could  only  be  effected  by  referring  the  portion  of 


SPEECHES.  515 

the  Message  in  question  to  a  select  committee,  by  which  the 
subject  might  be  thoroughly  investigated,  and  the  result  pre- 
sented in  a  report.  With  this  view  I  moved  the  committee, 
and  the  bill  and  report  which  the  Senator  has  attacked  so 
violently  are  the  result. 

These  are  the  reasons  which  governed  me  in  the  course  I 
took,  and  not  the  base  and  Unworthy  motive  of  hostility  to 
General  Jackson.  I  appeal  with  confidence  to  my  life  to 
prove,  that  neither  hostility  nor  attachment  to  any  man  or 
any  party,  can  influence  me  in  the  discharge  of  my  public 
duties  ; — but  were  I  capable  of  being  influenced  by  such 
motives,  I  must  tell  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  that  I  have 
too  little  regard  for  the  opinion  of  General  Jackson,  and, 
were  it  not  for  his  high  station,  I  would  add,  his  character 
too,  to  permit  his  course  to  influence  me  in  the  slightest 
degree,  either  for  or  against  any  measure. 

Having  now  assigned  the  motives  which  governed  me,  it  is 
with  satisfaction  I  add  that  I  have  a  fair  prospect  of  success. 
So  entirely  are  the  principles  of  the  Message  abandoned,  that 
not  a  friend  of  the  President  has  ventured,  and  I  hazard  no- 
thing in  saying  will  venture,  to  assert  them  practically,  what- 
ever they  may  venture  to  do  in  argument.  They  will  know 
now  that,  since  the  subject  has  been  investigated,  a  bill  to 
carry  into  effect  the  recommendation  of  the  Message  would 
receive  no  support  even  from  the  ranks  of  the  Administra- 
tion, devoted  as  they  are  to  their  chieftain. 

The  Senator  from  Georgia  made  other  objections  to  the 
report  beside  those  which  I  have  thus  incidentally  noticed, 
to  which  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  reply.  I  am  content 
with  his  vote,  and  cheerfully  leave  the  report  and  his  speech 
to  abide  their  fate,  with  a  brief  notice  of  a  single  objection. 

The  Senator  charges  me  with,  what  he  considers,  a  strange 
and  unaccountable  contradiction.  He  says  that  the  freedom 
of  the  press,  and  the  right  of  petition,  are  both  secured  by 
the  same  article  of  the  constitution,  and  both  stand  on  the 


516  SPEECHES. 

same  principle  ;  yet  I  who  decidedly  opposed  the  receiving 
of  abolition  petitions,  now  as  decidedly  support  the  liberty 
of  the  press.  To  make  ont  the  contradiction,  he  assumes 
that  the  constitution  places  the  right  of  petitioners  to  have 
their  petitions  received,  and  the  liberty  of  the  press  on  the 
same  ground.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  show  that,  in 
this,  he  is  entirely  mistaken,  and  that  my  course  on  both 
occasions  is  perfectly  consistent.  I  take  the  Senator  at  his 
word,  and  put  to  him  a  question  for  Ms  decision.  If,  in  op- 
posing the  reception  of  the  abolition  petitions,  and  advocat- 
ing the  freedom  of  the  press,  I  have  involved  myself  in  a 
palpable  contradiction,  how  can  he  escape  a  similar  charge, 
when  his  course  was  the  reverse  of  mine  on  both  occasions  ? 
Does  he  not  see  that  if  mine  be  contradictory,  as  he  supposes, 
his  too  must  necessarily  be  so  ?  But  the  Senator  forgets  his 
own  argument,  of  which  I  must  remind  him,  in  order  to  re- 
lieve him  from  the  awkward  dilemma  in  which  he  has  placed 
himself,  in  his  eagerness  to  fix  on  me  the  charge  of  contra- 
diction. He  seems  not  to  recollect  that,  in  his  speech  on 
receiving  the  abolition  petitions,  he  was  compelled  to  aban- 
don the  constitution,  and  to  place  the  right,  not  on  that 
instrument,  as  he  would  now  have  us  believe,  but  expressly 
on  the  ground  that  the  right  existed  anterior  to  the  consti- 
tution, and  that  we  must  look  for  its  limits,  not  to  the  constitu- 
tion, but  to  Magna  Charta  and  the  Declaration  of  Bights. 

Having  now  concluded  what  I  intended  to  say  in  reply  to 
the  Senator  from  Georgia,  I  turn  to  the  objections  of  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Davis),  which  were  direct- 
ed, not  against  the  report,  but  the  bill  itself.  The  Senator 
confined  his  objections  to  the  principles  of  the  bill,  which  he 
pronounces  dangerous  and  Unconstitutional.  It  is  my  wish 
to  meet  his  objections  fully,  fairly,  and  directly.  For  this 
purpose,  it  will  be  necessary  to  have  an  accurate  and  clear 
conception  of  the  principles  of  the  bill,  as  it  is  impossible 
without  it  to  estimate  correctly  the  force  either  of  the  objec- 


SPEECHES.  517 

tions  or  the  reply.  I  am  thus  constrained  to  restate  what 
the  principles  are,  at  the  hazard  of  being  considered  somewhat 
tedious. 

^/The  first  and  leading  principle  is,  that  the  subject  of 
slavery  is  under  the  sole  and  exclusive  control  of  the  States 
where  the  institution  exists.  It  belongs  to  them  to  determine 
what  may  endanger  its  existence,  and  when  and  how  it  may 
be  defended.  In  the  exercise  of  this  right,  they  may  pro- 
hibit the  introduction  or  circulation  of  any  paper  or  publica- 
tion, which  may,  in  their  opinion,  disturb  or  endanger  the 
institution/  Thus  far  all  are  agreed.  To  this  extent  no  one 
has  questioned  the  right  of  the  States  ;  not  even  the  Sena- 
tor from  Massachusetts  in  his  numerous  objections  to  the 
bill. 

The  next  and  remaining  principle/of  the  biJjXs  intimately 
.  connected  with  the  preceding  ;  and,  in  fact,  springs  directly 
from  ii.yii  assumes  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, in  the  exercise  of  its  delegated  rights,  to  respect 
the  laws  which  the  slaveholding  States  may  pass  in  protec- 
tion of  its  institutions  ;  or,  to  express  it  differently,  it  is  its 
duty  to  pass  such  laws  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  it  obli- 
gatory on  its  officers  and  agents  to  abstain  from  violating  the 
laws  of  the  States,  and  to  co-operate,  as  far  as  it  may  consist- 
ently be  done,  in  their  execution^  It  is  against  this  princi- 
ple that  the  objections  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
have  been  directed,  and  to  which  I  now  proceed  to  reply. 

His  first  objection  is,  that  the  principle  is  new ;  by  which 
I  understand  him  to  mean,  that  it  never  has  heretofore  been 
acted  on  by  the  Government.  The  objection  presents  two 
questions :  is  it  true,  in  point  of  fact  ?  and  if  so,  what  weight 
or  force  properly  belongs  to  it  ?  If  I  am  not  greatly  mis- 
taken, it  will  be  found  wanting  in  both  particulars  ;  and 
that,  so  far  from  being  new,  it  has  been  frequently  acted  on  ; 
and  that,  if  it  were  new,  the  fact  would  have  little  or  no 
force. 


518  SPEECHES. 

If  our  Government  had  been  in  operation  for  centuries, 
and  had  been  exposed  to  the  various  changes  and  trials  tc 
which  political  institutions,  in  a  long  protracted  existence, 
are  exposed  in  the  vicissitudes  of  events,  the  objection,  under 
such  circumstances,  that  a  principle  has  never  been  acted  up- 
on, if  not  decisive,  would  be  exceedingly  strong  ;  but  when 
made  in  reference  to  our  Government,  which  has  been  in  op- 
eration for  less  than  half  a  century,  and  which  is  so  complex 
and  novel  in  its  structure,  it  is  very  feeble.  We  all  know 
that  new  principles  are  daily  developing  themselves  under  our 
system,  with  the  changing  condition  of  the  country,  and 
doubtless  will  long  continue  so  to  do,  in  the  new  and  trying 
scenes  through  which  we  are  destined  to  pass.  It  may,  I  ad- 
mit, be  good  reason  even  with  us  for  caution, — for  thorough 
and  careful  investigation, — if  a  principle  proposed  to  be  acted 
upon  be  new  ;  for  I  have  long  since  been  taught  by  experi- 
ence, that  whatever  is  untried  is  to  be  received  with  caution 
in  politics,  however  plausible.  But  to  go  further  in  this  early 
stage  of  our  political  existence,  would  be  to  deprive  ourselves 
of  means  that  might  be  indispensable  to  meet  future  dangers 
and  difficulties. 

But  I  take  higher  grounds  in  reply  to  the  objection.  I 
deny  its  truth  in  point  of  fact,  and  assert,  that  the  principle 
is  not  new.  The  report  refers  to  two  instances  in  which 
it  has  been  acted  on,  and  to  which,  for  the  present,  I  shall 
confine  myself ;  one  in  reference  to  the  quarantine  laws  of 
the  States,  and  the  other  more  directly  connected  with  the 
subject  of  this  bill.  I  propose  to  make  a  few  remarks  in  re- 
ference to  both  ;  beginning  with  the  former,  with  the  view  of 
showing  that  the  principle  in  both  cases  is  strictly  analogous, 
or  rather  identical  with  the  present. 

The  health  of  the  State,  like  that  of  the  subject  of  slave- 
ry, belongs  exclusively  to  the  States.  It  is  reserved  and  not 
delegated  ;  and,  of  course,  each  State  has  a  right  to  judge  foi 
itself,  what  may  endanger  the  health  of  its  citizens,  what 


SPEECHES.  519 

measures  are  necessary  to  prevent  it,  and  when  and  how  such 
measures  are  to  be  carried  into  effect.  Among  the  causes 
which  may  endanger  the  health  of  a  State,  is  the  introduc- 
tion of  infectious  or  contagious  diseases,  through  the  medium 
of  commerce.  The  vessel  returning  with  a  rich  cargo,  in  ex- 
change for  the  products  of  a  State,  may  also  come  freighted 
with  the  seeds  of  disease  and  death.  To  guard  against  this 
danger,  the  States  at  a  very  early  period  adopted  quarantine 
or  health  laws.  These  laws,  it  is  obvious,  must  necessarily 
interfere  with  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce — 
a  power  as  expressly  given  as  that  to  regulate  the  mail,  and, 
as  far  as  the  present  question  is  concerned,  every  way  analo- 
gous ;  and  acting  accordingly  on  the  principles  of  this  bill, 
Congress,  as  far  back  as  the  year  1796,  passed  an  act  making 
it  the  duty  of  its  civil  and  military  officers  to  abstain  from 
the  violation  of  the  health  laws  of  the  States,  and  to  co-op- 
erate in  their  execution.  This  act  was  modified  and  repeal- 
ed by  that  of  1799,  which  has  since  remained  unchanged  on 
the  statute  book. 

But  the  other  precedent  referred  to  in  the  report  is  still 
more  direct  and  important.  That  case,  like  the  present,  in- 
volved the  right  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  adopt  such 
measures  as  they  may  think  proper,  to  prevent  their  domes- 
tic institutions  from  being  disturbed  or  endangered.  They 
may  be  endangered,  not  only  by  introducing  and  circulating 
inflammatory  publications,  calculated  to  excite  insurrection, 
but  also  by  the  introduction  of  free  people  of  color  from 
abroad,  who  may  come  as  emissaries,  or  with  opinions  and 
sentiments  hostile  to  the  peace  and  security  of  those  States. 
The  right  of  a  State  to  pass  laws  to  prevent  danger  from  pub- 
lications, is  not  more  clear  than  the  right  to  pass  those  which 
may  be  necessary  to  guard  against  this  danger.  The  act  of 
1803,  to  which  the  report  refers,  as  a  precedent,  recognizes 
this  right  to  the  fullest  extent.  It  was  intended  to  sustain 
the  laws  of  the  States  against  the  introduction  of  free  people 


520  SPEECHES. 

of  color  from  the  West  India  Islands.  The  Senator  from 
Massachusetts,  in  his  remarks  upon  this  precedent,  supposes 
the  law  to  have  been  passed  under  the  power  given  to  Con- 
gress by  the  constitution  to  suppress  the  slave  trade.  I  have 
turned  to  the  journals  in  order  to  ascertain  the  facts,  and  find 
that  the  Senator  is  entirely  mistaken.  The  law  was  passed 
on  a  memorial  of  the  citizens  of  Wilmington,  North  Carolina, 
and  originated  in  the  following  facts. 

After  the  successful  rebellion  of  the  slaves  of  St.  Domin- 
go, and  the  expulsion  of  the  French  power,  the  government  of 
the  other  French  West  India  Islands,  in  order  to  guard  against 
the  danger  from  the  example  of  St.  Domingo,  adopted  rigid 
measures  to  expel  their  free  blacks.  In  1803,  a  brig,  having  on 
board  five  persons  of  this  description  who  were  driven  from 
Guadaloupe,  arrived  at  Wilmington.  The  alarm  which  this 
caused  gave  birth  to  the  memorial,  and  the  memorial  to  the 
act.  I  learn  from  the  journals,  that  the  subject  was  fully 
investigated  and  discussed  in  both  Houses,  and  that  it  pass- 
ed by  a  very  large  majority.  The  first  section  of  the  bill 
prevents  the  introduction  of  any  negro,  mulatto,  or  mustee, 
into  any  State  by  the  laws  of  which  they  are  prevented  from 
being  introduced,  except  persons  of  the  description  from  be- 
yond the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  or  registered  seamen,  or  na- 
tives of  the  United  States.  The  second  section  prohibits 
the  entry  of  vessels  having  such  persons  on  board,  and  sub- 
jects the  vessels  to  seizure  and  forfeiture  for  landing,  or  at- 
tempting to  land  them  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  States  ; 
and  the  third  and  last  section  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  officers 
of  the  General  Government  to  co-operate  with  those  of  the 
States  in  the  execution  of  their  laws  against  their  introduc- 
tion. I  consider  this  precedent  to  be  one  of  vast  impor- 
tance to  the  slaveholding  States.  It  not  only  recognizes  the 
right  of  these  States  to  pass  such  laws  as  they  may  deem 
necessary  to  protect  themselves  as  to  the  slave  population, 
and  the  duty  of  the  General  Government  to  respect  those 


SPEECHES.  521 

laws,  hut  also  the  very  important  right  that  the  States  have 
the  authority  to  exclude  the  introduction  of  such  persons  as 
may  be  dangerous  to  their  institutions — a  principle  of  great 
extent  and  importance,  and  applicable  to  other  States  as  well 
as  slaveholding,  and  to  other  persons  as  well  as  blacks — and 
which  may  hereafter  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  the  history 
of  our  legislation. 

Having  now,  I  trust,  fully  and  successfully  replied  to  the 
first  objection  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  by  showing 
that  it  is  not  true  in  fact, — and  if  it  were,  that  it  would  have 
little  or  no  force, — I  shall  now  proceed  to  reply  to  the  second 
objection,  which  assumes  that  the  principles  for  which  I  con- 
tend would,  if  admitted,  transfer  the  power  over  the  mail 
from  the  General  Government  to  the  States. 

If  the  objection  be  well  founded,  it  must  prove  fatal  to 
the  bill.  The  power  over  the  mail  is,  beyond  all  doubt,  a 
delegated  power  ;  and  whatever  would  divest  the  Government 
of  this  power,  and  transfer  it  to  the  States,  would  certainly 
be  a  violation  of  the  constitution.  But  would  the  principle, 
if  acted  on,  transfer  the  power  ?  If  admitted  to  its  full  ex- 
tent, its  only  effect  would  be  to  make  it  the  duty  of  Con- 
gress, in  the  exercise  of  its  power  over  the  mail,  to  abstain 
from  violating  the  laws  of  the  State  in  protection  of  their 
slave  property,  and  to  co-operate,  where  it  could  with  pro- 
priety, in  their  execution.  Its  utmost  effect  would  then  be 
a  modification,  and  not  a  transfer  or  destruction  of  the  pow- 
er ;  and  surely  the  Senator  will  not  contend  that  to  modify 
a  right  amounts  either  to  its  transfer  or  annihilation.  He  can- 
not forget  that  all  rights  are  subject  to  modifications,  and  all, 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  are  held  under  one  universal 
condition — that  their  possessors  should  so  use  them  as  not  to 
injure  others.  Nor  can  he  contend  that  the  power  of  the 
General  Government  over  the  mail  is  without  modification 
or  limitation.  He,  himself,  admits  that  it  is  subject  to  a 
very  Important  modification,  when  he  concedes  that  the  Gov- 


522  SPEECHES. 

eminent  cannot  discriminate  in  reference  to  the  cliaractei 
of  the  publications  to  be  transmitted  by  the  mail,  without 
violating  the  first  amended  article  of  the  constitution,  which 
prohibits  Congress  from  passing  laws  abridging  the  liberty  of 
the  press.  Other  modifications  of  the  right  might  be  shown 
to  exist,  not  less  clear  nor  of  much  less  importance.  It 
might  be  easily  shown,  for  instance,  that  the  power  over  the 
mail  is  limited  to  the  transmission  of  intelligence, — and  that 
Congress  cannot,  consistently  with  the  nature  and  the  object  of 
the  power,  extend  it  to  the  ordinary  subjects  of  transportation, 
without  a  manifest  violation  of  the  constitution,  and  the  as- 
sumption of  a  principle  which  would  give  the  Government 
control  over  the  general  transportation  of  the  country,  both  by 
land  and  water.  But,  if  it  be  subject  to  these  modifications, 
without  either  annihilating  or  transferring  the  power,  why 
should  the  modification  for  which  I  contend,  and  which,  as  I 
shall  hereafter  prove,  rests  upon  unquestionable  principles, 
have  such  effect  ?  That  it  would  not  in  fact,  might  be  shown, 
if  other  proof  were  necessary,  by  a  reference  to  the  practical 
operation  of  the  principle  in  the  two  instances  already  refer- 
red to.  In  both,  the  principle  which  I  contend  for  in  rela- 
tion to  the  mail,  has  long  been  in  operation  in  reference  to 
commerce,  without  the  transfer  of  the  power  of  Congress  to 
regulate  commerce  to  the  States,  which  the  Senator  contends 
would  be  its  effect  if  applied  to  the  mail.  So  far  otherwise, 
so  little  has  it  affected  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  the 
commerce  of  the  country,  that  few  persons  comparatively 
are  aware  that  the  principle  has  been  recognized  and  acted 
on  by  the  General  Government. 

I  come  next,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  to  what  the  Senator 
seemed  to  rely  upon  as  his  main  objection.  He  stated  that 
the  principles  asserted  in  the  report  were  contradicted  in  the 
bill,  and  that  the  latter  undertakes  to  do,  indirectly,  what  the 
former  asserts  that  the  General  Government  cannot  do  at  alL 

Admit,  said  Mr.  C.,  the  objection  to  be  true  in  fact,  and 


SPEECHES.  523 

what  does  it  prove, — but  that  the  author  of  the  report  is  a 
bad  logician,  and  that  there  is  error  somewhere  ;  but  without 
proving  that  it  is  in  the  bill,  and  that  it  ought  therefore  to 
be  rejected,  as  the  Senator  contends.  If  there  be  error,  it 
may  be  in  the  report  instead  of  the  bill,  and  till  the  Senator 
can  fix  it  on  the  latter,  he  cannot  avail  himself  of  the  objec- 
tion. But  does  the  contradiction  which  he  alleges  exist  ? 
Let  us  turn  to  the  principles  asserted  in  the  report,  and  com- 
pare them  with  those  of  the  bill  in  order  to  determine  this 
point. 

What  are  the  principles  which  the  report  maintains  ? 
It  asserts  that  Congress  has  no  right  to  determine  what  pa- 
pers are  incendiary,  and  calculated  to  excite  insurrection, 
and  as  such  to  prohibit  their  circulation  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  it  belongs  to  the  States  to  determine  on  the  char- 
acter and  tendency  of  such  publications,  and  to  adopt  such 
measures  as  they  may  think  proper  to  prevent  then:  introduc- 
tion or  circulation.  Does  the  bill  deny  any  of  these  princi- 
ples ?  Does  it  not  assume  them  all  ?  Is  it  not  drawn  up  on 
the  supposition  that  the  General  Government  has  none  of 
the  powers  denied  by  the  report,  and  that  the  States  possess 
all  for  which  it  contends  ?  How  then  can  it  be  said  that 
the  bill  contradicts  the  report  ?  But  the  difficulty,  it  seems, 
is,  that  the  General  Government  would  do,  through  the 
States  under  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  what  the  report  de- 
nies that  it  can  do  directly  ;  and  this,  according  to  the  Sen- 
ator from  Georgia,  is  so  manifest  and  palpable  a  contradic- 
tion, that  he  can  find  no  explanation  for  my  conduct  but  an 
inveterate  hostility  to  General  Jackson,  which  he  is  pleased 
to  attribute  to  me. 

I  have,  I  trust,  successfully  repelled  already  the  imputa- 
tion, and  it  now  remains  to  show  that  the  gross  and  palpable 
errors  which  the  Senator  perceives,  exist  only  in  his  own 
imagination  ;  and  that,  instead  of  the  cause  he  supposes,  it 
originates  on  his  part  in  a  dangerous  and  fundamental  mis- 


524  SPEECHES. 

conception  of  the  nature  of  our  political  system  —  par- 
ticularly of  the  relation  between  the  States  and  General 
Government.  Were  the  States  the  agents  of  the  General 
Government,  as  the  objection  clearly  presupposes,  then 
what  he  says  would  be  true — and  the  Government  in  re- 
cognizing the  laws  of  the  States  would  adopt  the  acts  of 
its  agents.  But  the  fact  is  far  otherwise.  The  General 
Government  and  the  governments  of  the  States  are  distinct 
and  independent  departments  in  our  complex  political  sys- 
tem. The  States,  in  passing  laws  for  the  protection  of  their 
domestic  institutions,  act  in  a  sphere  as  independent  as  the 
General  Government  when  passing  laws  in  regulation  of  the 
mail ;  and  the  latter,  in  abstaining  from  violating  the  laws 
of  the  States,  as  provided  for  in  the  bill,  so  far  from  making 
the  States  its  agents,  but  recognizes  the  rights  of  the  States, 
and  performs,  on  its  part,  a  corresponding  duty.  Eights  and 
duties  are  in  their  nature  reciprocal.  The  existence  of  one 
presupposes  that  of  the  other  ;  and  the  performance  of  the 
duty,  so  far  from  denying  the  right,  distinctly  recognizes  its 
existence.  The  Senator,  for  example,  next  to  me  (Judge 
White),  has  the  unquestionable  right  to  the  occupation  of 
his  chair,  and  I  am  of  course  in  duty  bound  to  abstain  from 
violating  that  right ;  but  would  it  not  be  absurd  to  say,  that 
in  performing  that  duty  by  abstaining  from  violating  his 
right,  I  assumed  the  right  of  occupation  ?  Again  ;  suppose 
the  very  quiet  and  peaceable  Senator  from  Maine  (Mr.  Shep- 
ley),  who  is  his  next  neighbor  on  the  other  side,  should  under- 
take to  oust  the  Senator  from  Tennessee,  would  it  not  be 
strange  doctrine  to  contend,  that  if  I  were  to  co-operate 
with  the  Senator  of  Tennessee  in  maintaining  possession  of 
his  chair,  that  it  would  be  an  assumption  on  my  part  of  a 
right  to  the  chair  ?  And  yet  this  is  the  identical  principle 
which  the  Senator  from  Georgia  assumed,  in  charging  a 
manifest  and  palpable  contradiction  between  the  bill  and  the 
report. 


SPEECHES.  525 

But  to  proceed  with  the  objections  of  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts.  He  asserts,  and  asserts  truly,  that  rights 
and  duties  are  reciprocal ;  and  that  if  it  be  the  duty  of°the 
General  Government  to  respect  the  laws  of  the  States,  it  is, 
in  like  manner,  the  duty  of  the  States  to  respect  those  of 
the  General  Government.  The  practice  of  both  has  been 
in  conformity  with  the  principle.  I  have  already  cited  in- 
stances of  the  General  Government  respecting  the  laws  of 
the  States,  and  many  might  be  shown  of  the  States  respect- 
ing those  of  the  General  Government. 

But  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  affirms  that  the 
laws  of  the  General  Government  regulating  the  mail,  and 
those  of  the  governments  of  the  States  prohibiting  the  intro- 
duction and  circulation  of  incendiary  publications,  may  come 
into  conflict— and  that  in  such  event  the  latter  must  yield  to 
the  former  ;  and  he  rests  this  assertion  on  the  ground,  that 
the  power  of  the  General  Government  is  expressly  delegated 
by  the  constitution.  I  regard  the  argument  as  wholly  in- 
conclusive. Why  should  the  mere  fact  that  a  power  is 
expressly  delegated,  give  it  paramount  control  over  the  re- 
served powers?  What  possible  superiority  can  the  mere 
fact  of  delegation  give,  unless  indeed  it  be  supposed  to  ren- 
der the  right  more  clear,  and,  of  course,  less  questionable  ? 
Now  I  deny  that  it  has  in  this  instance  any  such  superiority. 
Though  the  power  of  the  General  Government  over  the  mail 
is  delegated,  it  is  not  more  clear  and  unquestionable  than  the 
reserved  right  of  the  States  over  the  subject  of  slavery — a 
right  which  neither  has  nor  can  be  denied.  In  fact,  I  might 
take  higher  grounds, — if  higher  grounds  were  possible, — by 
showing  that  the  rights  of  the  States  are  as  expressly  reserved 
as  those  of  the  General  Government  are  delegated ;  for  in  order 
to  place  the  reserved  rights  beyond  controversy,  the  tenth 
amended  article  of  the  constitution  expressly  provides,  that 
all  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  nor  prohibited  by 
it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  or  the  people  ;  and 


as  the  rights  in  respect  to  the  subject  of  slavery  are  acknowledg- 
ed by  all  not  to  be  delegated,  they  may  be  fairly  considered 
as  expressly  reserved  under  this  provision  of  the  constitution. 

But  while  I  deny  his  conclusion,  I  agree  with  the  Senator 
that  the  laws  of  the  States  and  General  Government  may 
come  into  conflict,  and  that  if  they  do,  one  or  the  other  must 
yield  :  and  the  question  is,  which  ought  to  yield  ?  The 
question  is  one  of  great  importance.  It  involves  the  whole 
merit  of  the  controversy,  and  I  must  entreat  the  Senate  to 
give  me  an  attentive  hearing  while  I  state  my  views  in  rela- 
tion to  it. 

In  order  to  determine  satisfactorily  which  ought  to  yield, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  have  a  clear  and  full  understanding 
of  the  point  of  difficulty  ;  and  for  this  purpose  it  is  necessary 
to  make  a  few  preliminary  remarks. 

Properly  considered,  the  reserved  and  delegated  powers 
can  never  come  into  conflict.  The  fact  that  a  power  is 
delegated,  is  conclusive  that  it  is  not  reserved  ;  and  that,  if 
not  delegated,  it  is  reserved,  unless  indeed  it  be  prohibited 
to  the  States.  There  is  but  a  single  exception  ;  the  case  of 
powers  of  such  nature  that  they  may  be  exercised  concur- 
rently by  the  State  and  General  Government — such  as  the 
power  of  laying  taxes,  which,  though  delegated,  may  also  be 
exercised  by  the  States.  In  illustration  of  the  truth  of  the 
position  I  have  laid  down,  I  might  refer  to  the  case  now  under 
consideration.  Regarded  in  the  abstract,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  conflict  between  the  power  delegated  by  the  consti- 
tution to  the  General  Government  to  establish  post-offices 
and  post-roads,  and  that  reserved  to  the  States  over  the 
subject  of  slavery.  How  then  can  there  be  conflict  ?  It 
occurs,  not  between  the  powers  themselves,  but  the  laws 
respectively  passed  to  carry  them  into  effect.  The  laws  of 
the  State,  prohibiting  the  introduction  or  circulation  of  in- 
cendiary publications,  may  come  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of 
the  General  Government  in  relation  to  the  mail ;  and  the 


SPEECHES.  527 

question  to  be  determined  is,  which,  in  the  event,  ought  to 
give  way  ? 

I  will  not  pretend  to  enter  into  a  full  and  systematic 
investigation  of  this  highly  important  question,  which  in- 
volves, as  I  have  said,  the  merits  of  the  whole  controversy. 
I  do  not  deem  it  necessary.  I  propose  to  lay  down  a  single 
principle,  which  I  hold  to  be  not  only  unquestionable,  but 
decisive  of  the  question  as  far  as  the  present  controversy  is 
concerned.  My  position  is,  that  in  deciding  which  ought  to 
yield,  regard  must  be  had  to  the  nature  and  magnitude  of 
the  powers  to  which  the  laws  respecting  it  relate.  The  low 
must  yield  to  the  high ;  the  convenient  to  the  necessary ; 
mere  accommodation  to  safety  and  security.  This  is  the 
universal  principle  which  governs  in  all  analogous  cases,  both 
in  our  social  and  political  relations.  Wherever  the  means 
of  enjoying  or  securing  rights  come  into  conflict  (rights  them- 
selves never  can),  this  universal  and  fundamental  principle  is 
the  one  which,  by  the  consent  of  mankind,  governs  in  all  , 
such  cases.  Apply  it  to  the  case  under  consideration,  and 
need  I  ask  which  ought  to  yield  ?  Will  any  rational  being 
say  that  the  laws  of  eleven  States  of  this  Union,  which  are 
necessary  to  their  peace,  security  and  very  existence,  ought 
to  yield  to  the  laws  of  the  General  Government  regulating 
the  post-office,  which  at  the  best  is  a  mere  accommodation 
and  convenience — and  this  when  the  Government  was  formed 
by  the  States  mainly  with  a  view  to  secure  more  perfectly  their 
peace  and  safety  ?  But  one  answer  can  be  given.  All 
must  feel,  that  it  would  be  improper  for  the  laws  of  the 
States,  in  such  case,  to  yield  to  those  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment, and,  of  course,  that  the  latter  ought  to  yield  to  the 
former.  When  I  say  ought,  I  do  not  mean  on  the  principle 
of  concession.  I  take  higher  grounds.  I  mean  under  the 
obligation  of  the  constitution  itself.  That  instrument  does 
not  leave  this  important  question  to  be  decided  by  mere  in- 
ference. It  contains  an  express  provision  which  is  deci- 


528  SPEECHES. 

sive  of  the  question.  I  refer  to  that  which  invests  Con- 
gress with  the  power  of  passing  laws  to  carry  into  effect  the 
granted  powers,  and  which  expressly  restricts  its  power  to 
laws  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into  effect  the  delegated 
powers.  We  here  have  the  limitation  on  the  power  of  pass- 
ing laws.  They  must  be  necessary  and  proper.  I  pass  the 
term  necessary  with  the  single  remark,  that  whatever  may 
be  its  true  and  accurate  meaning,  it  clearly  indicates  that 
this  important  power  was  sparingly  granted  by  the  framers 
of  the  constitution.  I  come  to  the  term  proper  ;  and  boldly 
assert,  if  it  has  any  meaning  at  all — if  it  can  be  said  of  any 
law  whatever  that  it  is  not  proper,  and  that,  as  such  Con- 
gress has  no  constitutional  right  to  pass  it,  surely  it  may  be 
said  of  that  which  would  abrogate,  in  fact,  the  laws  of  nearly 
half  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  and  which  are  conceded  to 
be  necessary  for  their  peace  and  safety.  If  it  be  proper  for 
Congress  to  pass  such  a  law,  what  law  could  possibly  be 
improper  ?  We  have  heard  much  of  late  of  State  Eights. 
All  parties  profess  to  respect  them,  as  essential  to  the  pre- 
servation of  our  liberty.  I  do  not  except  the  members  of 
the  old  federal  party — that  honest,  high-minded,  patriotic 
party,  though  mistaken  as  to  the  principles  and  tendency  of 
the  Government.  But  what,  let  me  ask,  would  be  the  value 
of  State  Eights,  if  the  laws  of  Congress  in  such  cases  ought 
not  to  yield  to  those  of  the  States  ?  If  they  must  be  consider- 
ed paramount,  whenever  they  come  into  conflict  with  those 
of  the  States,  without  regard  to  their  safety,  what  possible 
value  can  be  attached  to  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  how 
perfectly  unmeaning  their  reserved  powers  ?  Surrender  the 
principle,  and  there  is  not  one  of  the  reserved  powers  which 
may  not  be  annulled  by  Congress  under  the  pretext  of  pass- 
ing laws  to  carry  into  effect  the  delegated  powers. 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  next  objects,  that  if  the 
principles  of  the  bill  be  admitted,  they  may  be  extended  to 
morals  and  religion.  I  do  not  feel  bound  to  admit  or  deny 


SPEECHES.  529 

the  truth  of  this  assertion  ;  but  if  the  Senator  will  show  me 
a  case  in  which  a  State  has  passed  laws  under  its  unques- 
tionably reserved  powers,  in  protection  of  its  morality  or  re- 
ligion, I  would  hold  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment to  respect  the  laws  of  the  States,  in  conformity  with 
the  principles  which  I  maintain. 

His  next  objection  is,  that  the  bill  is  a  manifest  viola- 
tion of  the  liberty  of  the  press.  He  has  not  thought 
proper  to  specify  wherein  the  violation  consists.  Does  he 
mean  to  say  that  the  laws  of  the  States  prohibiting  the  in- 
troduction and  circulation  of  papers  calculated  to  excite 
insurrection,  are  in  violation  of  the  liberty  of  the  press  ? 
Does  he  mean  that  the  slaveholding  States  have  no  right  to 
pass  such  laws  ?  I  cannot  suppose  such  to  be  his  meaning  ; 
for  I  understood  him,  throughout  his  remarks,  to  admit  the 
right  of  the  States — a  right  which  they  have  always  exercised, 
without  restriction  or  limitation,  before  and  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution,  without  ever  having  been  ques- 
tioned. But  if  this  be  not  his  meaning,  he  must  mean  that 
this  bill,  in  making  it  the  duty  of  the  officers  and  agents  of 
the  Government  to  respect  the  laws  of  the  States,  violates 
the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  thus  involves  the  old  miscon- 
ception, that  the  States  are  the  agents  of  this  Government, 
which  pervades  the  whole  argument  of  the  Senator,  and  to 
which  I  have  already  replied. 

The  Senator  next  objects,  that  the  bill  makes  it  penal 
on  deputy  postmasters  to  receive  the  papers  and  publica- 
tions which  it  embraces.  I  must  say,  that  my  friend  from 
Massachusetts  (for  such  I  consider  him,  though  we  differ  in 
politics)  has  not  expressed  himself  with  his  usual  accuracy 
on  the  present  occasion.  If  he  will  turn  to  the  provisions  of 
the  bill,  he  will  find  that  the  penalty  attaches  only  in  sases 
of  knowingly  receiving  and  delivering  out  the  papers  and 
publications  in  question.  All  the  consequences  which  the 
Senator  drew  from  the  view  which  he  took  of  the  bill,  of 
VOL.  ii. — 34 


530  SPEECHES. 

course  fall ;  which  relieves  me  from  the  necessity  of  showing 
that  the  deputy  postmasters  will  not  be  compelled  to  resort 
to  the  espionage  into  letters  and  packages,  in  order  to  ex- 
onerate themselves  from  the  penalty  of  the  bill,  which  he 
supposed. 

The  last  objection  of  the  Senator  is,  that  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  bill,  every  thing  touching  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  will  be  prohibited  from  passing  through  the  mail.  I 
again  must  repeat,  that  the  Senator  has  not  expressed  him- 
self with  sufficient  accuracy.  The  provisions  of  the  bill  are 
limited  to  the  transmission  of  such  papers,  in  reference  to 
slavery,  as  are  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  the  slaveholding 
States  ;  that  is,  by  eleven  States  of  the  Union — leaving  the 
circulation  through  the  mail  without  restriction  or  qualifica- 
tion as  to  all  other  papers,  and  wholly  so  as  to  the  remaining 
thirteen  States.  But  the  Senator  seems  to  think  that  even 
this  restriction,  as  limited  as  it  is,  would  be  a  very  great  in- 
convenience. It  may  indeed  prove  so  to  the  lawless  abo- 
litionists, who,  without  regard  to  the  obligations  of  the  con- 
stitution, are  attempting  to  scatter  their  firebrands  through- 
out the  Union.  But  is  their  convenience  the  only  thing  to 
be  taken  into  the  estimate  ?  Are  the  peace,  security,  and 
safety  of  the  slaveholding  States  nothing  ?  or  are  these  to  be 
sacrificed  for  the  accommodation  of  the  abolitionists  ? 

I  have  now  replied  directly,  fully,  and,  I  trust,  success- 
fully, to  the  objections  to  the  bill ;  and  shall  close  what  I 
intended  to  say,  by  a  few  general  and  brief  remarks. 
^^We  have  arrived  at  a  new  and  important  point  in  refer- 
ence to  the  abolition  question.  It  is  no  longer  in  the  hands 
of  quiet  and  peaceful,  but  I  cannot  add,  harmless  Quakers. 
It  is  now  under  the  control  of  ferocious  zealots,  blinded  by 
fanaticism,  and,  in  pursuit  of  their  object,  regardless  of  the 
obligations  of  religion  or  morality.  They  are  organized 
throughout  every  section  of  the  non-slaveholding  States  ; 
they  have  the  disposition  of  almost  unlimited  funds,  and  are 


SPEECHES.  531 

in  possession  of  a  powerful  press,  which,  for  the  first  time,  is 
enlisted  in  the  cause  of  abolition,  and  turned  against  the 
domestic  institutions,  and  the  peace  and  security  of  the 
South.  To  guard  against  the  danger  in  this  new  and  more 
menacing  form,  the  slaveholding  States  will  be  compelled  to 
revise  their  laws  against  the  introduction  and  circulation  of 
publications  calculated  to  disturb  their  peace  and  endanger 
their  security,  and  to  render  them  far  more  full  and  efficient 
than  they  have  heretofore  been.  In  this  new  state  of  things, 
the  probable  conflict  between  the  laws  which  those  States 
may  think  proper  to  adopt,  and  those  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment regulating  the  mail,  becomes  far  more  important  than 
at  any  former  stage  of  the  controversy ;  and  Congress  is  now 
called  upon  to  say  what  part  it  will  take  in  reference  to  this 
deeply  interesting  subject.  We  of  the  slaveholding  States 
ask  nothing  of  the  Government,  but  that  it  should  abstain 
from  violating  laws  passed  within  our  acknowledged  consti- 
tutional competency,  and  conceded  to  be  essential  to  our 
peace  and  security.  I  am  anxious  to  see  how  this  question 
will  be  decided.  I  am  desirous  that  my  constituents  should 
know  what  they  have  to  expect,  either  from  this  Govern- 
ment or  from  the  non-slaveholding  States.  Much  that  I 
have  said  and  done  during  the  session,  has  been  with  the 
view  of  affording  them  correct  information  on  this  point,  in 
order  that  they  might  know  to  what  extent  they  might  rely 
upon  others,  and  how  far  they  must  depend  on  themselves. 

Thus  far  (I  say  it  with  regret)  our  just  hopes  have  not 
been  realized.  The  legislatures  of  the  South,  backed  by  the 
voice  of  their  constituents,  expressed  through  innumerable 
meetings,  have  called  upon  the  non-slaveholding  States  to 
repress  the  movements  made  within  the  jurisdiction  of  those 
States,  against  their  peace  and  security.  Not  a  step  has  been 
taken  ;  not  a  law  has  been  passed,  or  even  proposed  ;  and 
I  venture  to  assert  that  none  will  be.  Not  but  that  there  is 
a  favorable  dispositions  towards  us  in  the  North,  but  I  clearly 


532 


SPEECHES. 


see  the  state  of  political  parties  there  presents  insuperable 
impediments  to  any  legislation  on  the  subject.  I  rest  my 
opinion  on  the  fact,  that  the.  non-slaveholding  States,  from 
the  elements  of  their  population,  are,  and  will  continue  to 
be,  divided  and  distracted  by  parties  of  nearly  equal  strength ; 
and  that  each  will  always  be  ready  to  seize  on  every  move- 
ment of  the  other  which  may  give  them  the  superiority, 
without  much  regard  to  consequences  as  affecting  their  own 
States,  much  less  of  remote  and  distant  sections. 

Nor  have  we  been  less  disappointed  as  to  the  proceedings 
of  Congress.  Believing  that  the  General  Government  has 
no  right  or  authority  over  the  subject  of  slavery,  we  had  just 
grounds  to  hope  Congress  would  refuse  all  jurisdiction  in 
reference  to  it,  in  whatever  form  it  might  be  presented.  The 
very  opposite  course  has  been  pursued.  Abolition  petitions 
have  not  only  been  received  in  both  Houses,  but  received  on 
the  most  obnoxious  and  dangerous  of  all  grounds — -that  we 
are  bound  to  receive  them  ;  that  is,  to  take  jurisdiction  of 
the  question  of  slavery  whenever  the  abolitionists  may  think 
proper  to  petition  for  its  abolition,  either  here  or  in  the 
States. 

Thus  far,  then,  we  of  the  slaveholding  States  have  been 
grievously  disappointed.  One  question  still  remains  to  be 
decided — that  presented  by  this  bill.  To  refuse  to  pass  this 
bill  would  be  virtually  to  co-operate  with  the  abolitionists — 
would  be  to  make  the  officers  and  agents  of  the  post-office 
department,  in  effect,  their  agents  and  abettors  in  the  cir- 
culation of  their  incendiary  publications  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  States.  It  is  your  unquestionable  duty,  as  I 
have  demonstrably  proved,  to  abstain  from  their  violation; 
and  by  refusing  or  neglecting  to  discharge  this  duty,  you 
would  clearly  enlist,  in  the  existing  controversy,  on  the  side 
of  the  abolitionists,  against  the  Southern  States.  Should 
such  be  your  decision,  by  refusing  to  pass  this  bill,  I  shall 
say  to  the  people  of  the  South,  look  to  yourselves — you  have 


SPEECHES.  533 

nothing  to  hope  from  others.  But  I  must  tell  the  Senate, 
be  your  decision  what  it  may,  the  South  will  never  abandon 
the  principles  of  this  bill.  If  you  refuse  co-operation  with 
our  laws,  and  conflict  should  ensue  between  yours  and  ours, 
the  Southern  States  will  never  yield  to  the  superiority 
of  yours.  We  have  a  remedy  in  our  hands,  which,  in  such 
event,  we  shall  not  fail  to  apply.  We  have  high  authority 
for  asserting,  that,  in  such  cases,  "  State  interposition  is  the 
rightful  remedy" — a  doctrine  first  announced  by  Jefferson — 
adopted  by  the  patriotic  and  republican  State  of  Kentucky, 
by  a  solemn  resolution  in  '98,  and  finally  carried  out  into 
successful  practice  on  a  recent  occasion,  ever  to  be  remem- 
bered, by  the  gallant  State,  which  I,  in  part,  have  the  honor 
to  represent.  In  this  well  tested  and  efficient  remedy,  sus- 
tained by  the  principles  developed  in  the  report,  and  asserted 
in  this  bill,  the  slaveholding  States  have  an  ample  protection. 
Let  it  be  fixed — let  it  be  riveted  in  every  Southern  mind, 
that  the  laws  of  the  slaveholding  States  for  the  protection  of 
their  domestic  institutions  are  paramount  to  the  laws  of  the 
General  Government  in  regulation  of  commerce  and  the 
mail;  —  that  the  latter  must  yield  to  the  former  in  the 
event  of  conflict ;  and  that  if  the  Government  should  refuse 
to  yield,  the  States  have  a  right  to  interpose,  and  we  are 
safe.  With  these  principles,  nothing  but  concert  would  be 
wanting  to  bid  defiance  to  the  movements  of  the  abolition- 
ists, whether  at  home  or  abroad  ;  and  to  place  our  domestic 
institutions,  and  with  them  our  security  and  peace,  under 
our  own  protection,  and  beyond  the  reach  of  danger. 


534  SPEECHES. 


SPEECH 

On  the  Bill  to  regulate  the  Deposits  of  the  Public 
Money,  delivered  in  the  Senate,  May  28th,  1836. 

[AFTER  some  remarks  from  Mr.  Wright,  in  explanation,  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  said:] 

THIS  bill,  which  the  Senator  from  New- York  proposes  to 
strike  out,  in  order  to  substitute  his  amendment,  is  no 
stranger  to  this  body.  It  was  reported  at  the  last  session 
by  the  Select  Committee  on  Executive  Patronage,  and  passed 
the  Senate,  after  a  full  and  deliberate  investigation,  by  a 
mixed  vote  of  all  parties,  of  twenty  to  twelve.  As  strong 
as  is  this  presumptive  evidence  hi  its  favor,  I  would,  not- 
withstanding, readily  surrender  the  bill,  and  adopt  the 
amendment  of  the  Senator  from  New- York,  if  I  did  not 
sincerely  believe  that  it  is  liable  to  strong  and  decisive  objec- 
tions. I  seek  no  lead  on  this  important  subject ;  my  sole 
aim  is  to  aid  in  applying  a  remedy  to  what  I  honestly  believe 
to  be  a  deep  and  dangerous  disease  of  the  body  politic  ;  and 
I  stand  prepared  to  co-operate  with  any  one,  be  he  of  what 
party  he  may,  who  may  propose  a  remedy,  provided  it  shall 
promise  to  be  safe  and  efficient.  I,  in  particular,  am  de- 
sirous of  co-operating  with  the  Senator  from  New- York,  not 
only  because  I  desire  the  aid  of  his  distinguished  talents,  but, 
still  more,  of  his  decisive  influence  with  the  powerful  party 
of  which  he  is  so  distinguished  a  member,  and  which  now, 
for  good  or  evil,  holds  the  destinies  of  the  country  in  its  hands. 
It  was  in  this  spirit  that  I  examined  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  Senator  ;  and,  I  regret  to  say,  after  a  full  in- 
vestigation, I  cannot  acquiesce  in  it,  as  I  feel  a  deep  convic- 
tion that  it  will  be  neither  safe  nor  efficient.  So  far  from 
being  substantially  the  same  as  the  bill,  as  stated  by  the 


SPEECHES.  535 

Senator,  I  cannot  but  regard  it  as  essentially  different,  both 
as  to  objects  and  means.  The  objects  of  the  bill  are  :  first, 
to  secure  the  public  interest  as  far  as  it  is  connected  with 
the  deposits  ;  and,  next,  to  protect  the  banks  in  which  they 
are  made  against  the  influence  and  control  of  the  executive 
branch  of  this  Government,  with  a  view  both  to  their  and 
the  public  interest.  Compared  with  the  bill,  in  respect  to 
both,  the  proposed  amendment  will  be  found  to  favor  the 
banks  against  the  people,  and  the  Executive  against  the 
banks.  I  do  not  desire  the  Senate  to  form  their  opinion 
on  my  authority.  I  wish  them  to  examine  for  themselves  ; 
and,  in  order  to  aid  them  in  the  examination,  I  shall  now 
proceed  to  state,  and  briefly  illustrate,  the  several  points  of 
difference  between  the  bill  and  the  proposed  amendment, 
taking  them  in  the  order  in  which  they  stand  in  the  bill. 

The  first  section  of  the  bill  provides  that  the  banks  shall 
pay  at  the  rate  of  two  per  cent,  per  annum  on  the  deposits 
for  the  use  of  the  public  money.  This  provision  is  entirely 
omitted  in  the  amendment,  which  proposes  to  give  to  the 
banks  the  use  of  the  money  without  interest.  That  the 
banks  ought  to  pay  something  for  the  use  of  the  public  money, 
all  must  agree,  whatever  diversity  of  opinion  there  may  be  as 
to  the  amount.  According  to  the  last  return  of  the  treasury 
department,  there  was,  on  the  first  of  this  month,  $45,000,000 
of  public  money  in  the  thirty-six  depository  banks,  which 
they  are  at  liberty  to  use  as  their  own  for  discount  or  business, 
till  drawn  out  for  disbursements — an  event  that  may  not 
happen  for  years.  In  a  word,  this  vast  amount  is  so  much 
additional  banking  capital,  giving  the  same,  or  nearly  the 
same,  profit  to  those  institutions  as  their  permanent  chartered 
capital,  without  rendering  any  other  service  to  the  public 
than  paying  away,  from  time  to  time,  the  portion  that  may 
be  required  for  the  service  of  the  Government.  Assuming 
that  the  banks  realize  a  profit  of  six  per  cent,  on  these  depo- 
sits (it  cannot  be  estimated  at  less),  it  would  give,  on  the 


536  SPEECHES. 

present  amount,  nearly  three  millions  of  dollars  per  annum  ; 
and  on  the  probable  average  public  deposits  of  the  year,  up- 
wards of  two  millions  of  dollars  ;  which  enormous  profit  is 
derived  from  the  public  by  comparatively  few  individuals, 
without  any  return  or  charge,  except  the  inconsiderable  ser- 
vice of  paying  out  the  draughts  of  the  treasury  when  pre- 
sented. But  it  is  due  to  the  Senator  to  acknowledge  that 
his  amendment  is  predicated  on  the  supposition  that  some 
disposition  must  be  made  of  the  surplus  revenue,  which  would 
leave  in  the  banks  a  sum  not  greater  than  would  be  requisite 
to  meet  the  current  expenditure  :  a  supposition  which  must 
necessarily  affect,  very  materially  affect,  the  decision  of  the 
question  as  to  the  amount  of  compensation  the  banks  ought  to 
make  to  the  public  for  the  use  of  its  funds.  But,  let  the 
decision  be  what  it  may,  the  omission  in  the  amendment 
of  any  compensation  whatever  is,  in  my  opinion,  wholly  inde- 
fensible. 

The  next  point  of  difference  relates  to  transfer  warrants. 
The  bill  prohibits  the  use  of  transfer  warrants,  except  with 
a  view  to  disbursement — while  the  amendment  leaves  them, 
without  regulation,  under  the  sole  control  of  the  treasury 
department.  To  understand  the  importance  of  this  difference, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  transfer  warrants  are  the 
lever  by  which  the  whole  banking  operations  of  the  country 
may  be  controlled  through  the  deposits.  By  them  the  public 
money  may  be  transferred  from  one  bank  to  another,  or  from 
one  State  or  section  of  the  country  to  another  State  or  sec- 
tion ;  and  thus  one  bank  may  be  elevated  and  another 
depressed,  and  a  redundant  currency  created  in  one  State  or 
section,  and  a  deficient  in  another ;  and,  through  such  re- 
dundancy or  deficiency,  all  the  moneyed  engagements  and 
business  transactions  of  the  whole  community  may  be  made 
dependent  on  the  will  of  one  man.  With  the  present  enor- 
mous surplus,  it  is  difficult  to  assign  limits  to  the  extent  of 
this  power.  The  Secretary — or  the  irresponsible  agent  un- 


SPEECHES.  537 

known  to  the  laws,  who,  rumor  says,  has  the  direction  of  this 
immense  power  (we  are  permitted  to  have  no  certain  infor- 
mation), may  raise  and  depress  stocks  and  property  of  all 
descriptions  at  his  pleasure,  by  withdrawing  from  one  place 
and  transferring  to  another,  to  the  unlimited  gain  of  those  who 
are  in  the  secret,  and  the  certain  ruin  of  those  who  are  not. 
Such  a  field  of  speculation  has  never  before  been  opened  in 
any  country  ;  a  field  so  great,  that  the  Kothschilds  themselves 
might  be  tempted  to  enter  it  with  their  immense  funds.  Nor 
is  the  control  which  it  would  give  over  the  politics  of  the 
country  much  less  unlimited.  To  the  same  extent  that  it 
may  be  used  to  affect  the  interests  and  the  fortunes  of  indi- 
viduals, to  the  like  extent  it  may  be  employed  as  an  instru- 
ment of  political  influence  and  control.  I  do  not  intend  to 
assert  that  it  has  or  will  be  so  employed  ;  it  is  not  essential  at 
present  to  inquire  how  it  has  been  or  will  be  used.  It  is  suffi- 
cient for  my  purpose  to  show,  as  I  trust  I  have  satisfactorily, 
that  it  may  be  so  employed.  To  guard  against  the  abuse  of 
so  dangerous  a  power,  the  provision  was  inserted  in  the  bill 
to  prohibit  the  use  of  transfer  warrants,  except,  as  stated, 
for  the  purpose  of  disbursement ;  the  omission  of  which  pro- 
vision in  the  amendment  is  a  fatal  objection  to  it  of  itself,  were 
there  no  other.  But  it  is  far  from  standing  alone  :  the  next 
point  of  difference  will  be  found  to  be  not  less  striking  and 
fatal. 

The  professed  object  of  both  the  bill  and  the  amendment 
is,  to  place  the  safe-keeping  of  the  public  money  under  the 
regulation  and  control  of  law,  instead  of  being  left,  as  it  now 
is,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Executive.  However  strange  it 
may  seem,  the  fact  is  nevertheless  so,  that  the  amendment 
entirely  fails  to  effect  the  object  which  it  is  its  professed 
aim  to  accomplish.  In  order  that  it  may  be  distinctly  seen 
that  what  I  state  is  the  case,  it  will  be  necessary  to  view  the 
provisions  of  the  bill  and  the  amendment  in  reference  to  the 
deposit  separately — as  they  relate  to  the  banks  in  which  the 


538  SPEECHES. 

public  funds  are  now  deposited — and  as  to  those  which  may 
hereafter  be  selected  to  receive  them. 

The  bill  commences  with  the  former,  which  it  adopts  as 
banks  of  deposit,  and  prescribes  the  regulations  and  con- 
ditions on  the  observance  of  which  they  shall  continue  such  ; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  it  puts  them  beyond  the  control 
and  influence  of  the  executive  department,  by  placing  them 
Tinder  the  protection  of  law  so  long  as  they  continue  faith- 
fully to  perform  their  duty  as  fiscal  agents  of  the  Government. 
It  next  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  select, 
under  certain  circumstances,  additional  banks  of  deposit,  as 
the  exigency  of  the  public  service  may  require,  on  which  it 
imposes  like  regulations  and  conditions,  and  places,  in  like 
manner,  under  the  protection  of  law.  In  all  this,  the  amend- 
ment pursues  a  very  different  course.  It  begins  with  author- 
izing the  Secretary  to  select  the  banks  of  deposit,  and  limits 
the  regulations  and  conditions  it  imposes  on  such  banks ; 
leaving,  by  an  express  provision,  the  present  banks  wholly 
under  the  control  of  the  treasury  or  the  executive  department, 
as  they  now  are,  without  prescribing  any  time  for  the  selec- 
tion of  other  banks  of  deposit,  or  making  it  the  duty  of  the 
Secretary  so  to  do.  The  consequence  is  obvious.  The 
Secretary  may  continue  the  present  banks  as  long  as  he 
pleases  ;  and  so  long  as  he  may  choose  to  continue  them,  the 
provisions  of  the  amendment,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  deposits, 
will  be  a  dead  letter ;  and  the  banks,  of  course,  instead  of 
being  under  the  control  of  the  law,  will  be — contrary,  as  I  have 
said,  to  the  professed  object  both  of  the  bill  and  amendment 
— subject  exclusively  to  his  will. 

The  Senator  has  attempted  to  explain  this  difference,  but, 
I  must  say,  very  unsatisfactorily.  He  said  that  the  bill  pro- 
hibited the  selection  of  other  banks  ;  and,  as  he  deemed  others 
to  be  necessary,  at  certain  important  points,  in  consequence 
of  the  present  enormous  surplus,  he  inserted  the  provision 
authorizing  the  selection  of  other  banks.  The  Senator  has 


539 

not  stated  the  provisions  of  the  bill  accurately.  So  far  from 
not  authorizing,  it  expressly  authorizes  the  selection  of  other 
banks  where  there  are  now  none.  But  I  presume  he  intended 
to  limit  his  remarks  to  places  where  there  are  no  existing 
banks  of  deposit.  Thus  limited,  the  fact  is  as  he  states  ;  but 
it  by  no  means  explains  the  extraordinary  omission  (for  such 
I  must  consider  it)  of  not  extending  the  regulations  to  the 
existing  banks,  as  well  as  to  those  hereafter  to  be  selected. 
If  the  public  service  requires  additional  banks  at  New- York 
and  other  important  points,  in  consequence  of  the  vast  sums 
deposited  there  (as  I  readily  agree  it  does)  ;  if  no  disposition 
is  to  be  made  of  the  surplus,  it  is  certainly  a  very  good  reason 
for  enlarging  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  by  authorizing  the 
Secretary  to  select  other  banks  at  those  points ;  but  it  is 
impossible  for  me  to  comprehend  how  it  proves  that  the  reg- 
ulations which  the  amendment  proposes  to  impose  should  be 
exclusively  limited  to  such  newly-selected  banks.  Nor  do  I 
see  why  the  Senator  has  not  observed  the  same  rule,  in  this 
case,  as  that  which  he  adopted  in  reference  to  the  compensa- 
tion the  banks  ought  to  pay  for  the  use  of  the  public  money. 
He  omitted  to  provide  for  any  compensation,  on  the  ground 
that  his  amendment  proposed  to  dispose  of  all  the  surplus 
money,  leaving  in  the  possession  of  the  banks  a  sum  barely 
sufficient  to  meet  the  current  expenditure,  for  the  use  of 
which  he  did  not  consider  it  right  to  charge  a  compensation. 
On  the  same  principle,  it  was  unnecessary  to  provide  for  the 
selection  of  additional  banks  where  there  are  now  banks  of 
deposit,  as  they  would  be  ample  if  the  surplus  were  disposed 
of.  In  this  I  understood  the  Senator  himself  to  concur. 

But  it  is  not  only  in  the  important  point  of  extend- 
ing the  regulations  to  existing  banks  of  deposit  that  the 
bill  and  the  amendment  differ.  There  is  a  striking  dif- 
ference between  them  in  reference  to  the  authority  of  Con- 
gress over  the  banks  of  deposit  embraced  both  in  the  bill 
and  the  amendment.  The  latter,  following  the  provision  in 


.540  SPEECHES. 

the  charter  of  the  late  Bank  of  the  United  States,  autho- 
rizes the  Secretary  to  withdraw  the  public  deposits,  and  to 
discontinue  the  use  of  any  one  of  the  banks  whenever,  in  his 
opinion,  such  a  bank  shall  have  violated  the  conditions  on 
which  it  has  been  employed,  or  the  public  funds  are  not  safe 
in  its  vaults,  with  the  simple  restriction,  that  he  shall  report 
the  fact  to  Congress.  We  know,  from  experience,  how  slight 
is  the  check  which  this  restriction  imposes.  It  not  only  re- 
quires the  concurrence  of  both  Houses  of  Congress  to  over- 
rule the  act  of  the  Secretary,  where  his  power  may  be  im- 
properly exercised,  but  the  act  of  Congress  itself,  intended 
to  control  such  exercise  of  power,  may  be  overruled  by  the 
veto  of  the  President,  at  whose  will  the  Secretary  holds  his 
place  ;  so  as  to  leave  the  control  of  the  banks  virtually  under 
the  control  of  the  executive  department  of  the  Government. 
To  obviate  this,  the  bill  vests  the  Secretary  with  the  power 
simply  of  withdrawing  the  deposits  and  suspending  the  use 
of  the  bank  as  a  place  of  deposit ;  and  provides  that,  if 
Congress  shall  not  confirm  the  removal,  the  deposits  shall  be 
returned  to  the  bank  after  the  termination  of  the  next  ses- 
sion of  Congress. 

The  next  point  of  difference  is  of  far  less  importance, 
and  is  only  mentioned  as  tending  to  illustrate  the  different 
character  of  the  bill  and  the  amendment.  The  former  pro- 
vides that  the  banks  of  deposit  shall  perform  the  duties  of 
commissioners  of  loans  without  compensation,  in  like  man- 
ner as  it  was  required  of  the  late  Bank  of  the  United  States 
and  its  branches,  under  its  charter.  Among  these  duties  is  that 
of  paying  the  pensioners — a  very  heavy  branch  of  disburse- 
ment, and  attended  with  considerable  expense,  which  will 
be  saved  to  the  Government  under  the  bill,  but  will  be  lost 
if  the  amendment  should  prevail. 

Another  difference  remains  to  be  pointed  out,  relating  to 
the  security  of  the  deposits.  With  so  large  an  amount 
of  public  money  in  their  vaults,  it  is  important  that  the 


SPEECHES.  541 

banks  should  always  be  provided  with  ample  means  to  meet 
their  engagements.  With  this  view,  the  bill  provides  that 
the  specie  in  the  vaults  of  the  several  banks,  and  the  aggre- 
gate of  the  balance  in  their  favor  with  other  specie-paying 
banks,  shall  be  equal  to  one-fifth  of  the  entire  amount  of 
their  notes  and  bills  in  circulation,  and  their  public  and  pri- 
vate deposits — a  sum  believed  to  be  sufficient  to  keep  them 
in  a  sound,  solvent  condition.  The  amendment,  on  the  con- 
trary, provides  that  the  banks  shall  keep  in  their  own  vaults, 
or  the  vaults  of  other  banks,  specie  equal  to  one-fourth  of  its 
notes  and  bills  in  circulation,  and  the  balance  of  its  accounts 
with  other  banks  payable  on  demand. 

I  regret  that  the  Senator  has  thought  proper  to  change 
the  phraseology,  and  to  use  terms  less  clear  and  explicit  than 
those  in  the  bill.  I  am  not  certain  that  I  comprehend  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  provision  in  the  amendment.  What 
is  meant  by  specie  in  the  vaults  of  other  banks  ?  In  a  gen- 
eral sense,  all  deposits  are  considered  as  specie  ;  but  I  cannot 
suppose  that  to  be  the  meaning  in  this  instance,  as  it  would 
render  the  provision  in  a  great  measure  inoperative.  I  pre- 
sume the  amendment  means  special  deposits  in  gold  and 
silver  hi  other  banks,  placed  there  for  safe-keeping,  or  to 
be  drawn  on,  and  not  to  be  used  by  the  bank  in  which  it  is 
deposited.  Taking  this  to  be  the  meaning,  what  is  there  to 
prevent  the  same  sum  from  being  twice  counted  in  estimat- 
ing the  means  of  the  several  banks  of  deposit  ?  Take  two 
of  them — one  having  $100,000  in  specie  in  its  vaults,  and 
the  other  the  same  amount  in  the  vaults  of  the  other  bank, 
which,  in  addition,  has,  besides,  another  $100,000  of  its  own ; 
what  is  there  to  prevent  the  latter  from  returning,  under  the 
amendment,  $200,000  of  specie  in  its  vaults,  while  the  for- 
mer would  return  $100,000  in  its  own  vaults,  and  another  in 
the  vaults  of  the  other  bank,  making  in  the  aggregate,  be- 
tween them,  $400,000,  when,  in  reality,  the  amount  in  both 
would  be  but  $300,000  ? 


542  SPEECHES. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  difference  between  the  bill  and 
amendment,  in  this  particular,  deserving  of  notice.  The 
object  of  the  provision  is  to  compel  the  banks  of  deposit  to 
have,  at  all  times,  ample  means  to  meet  their  liabilities  ;  so 
that  the  Government  should  have  sufficient  assurance  that 
the  public  moneys  in  their  vaults  would  be  forthcoming  when 
demanded.  With  this  view,  the  bill  provides  that  the  avail- 
able means  of  the  bank  shall  never  be  less  than  one-fifth  of 
its  aggregate  liabilities,  including  bills,  notes,  and  deposits, 
public  and  private ;  while  the  amendment  entirely  omits  the 
private  deposits,  and  includes  only  the  balance  of  its  deposits 
with  other  banks.  This  omission  is  the  more  remarkable, 
inasmuch  as  the  greater  portion  of  the  liabilities  of  the  de- 
posit banks  must,  with  the  present  large  surplus,  result  from 
their  deposits — as  every  one  who  is  familiar  with  banking  op- 
erations will  readily  perceive. 

I  have  now  presented  to  the  Senate  the  several  points  of 
difference  which  I  deem  material  between  the  bill  and  the 
amendment,  with  such  remarks  as  may  enable  them  to  form 
then-  own  opinion  in  reference  to  the  difference,  so  that  they 
may  decide  how  far  the  assertion  is  true  with  which  I  set  out, 
that,  wherever  they  differ,  the  amendment  favors  the  banks 
against  the  interests  of  the  public,  and  the  Executive  against 
the  banks. 

The  Senator,  acting  on  the  supposition  that  there  would 
be  a  permanent  surplus  beyond  the  expenditures  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, which  neither  justice  nor  regard  to  the  public  in- 
terest would  permit  to  remain  in  the  banks,  has  extended 
the  provisions  of  his  amendment,  with  great  propriety,  so  as 
to  comprehend  a  plan  to  withdraw  the  surplus  from  the 
banks.  His  plan  is  to  vest  the  commissioners  of  the  sinking 
fund  with  authority  to  estimate,  at  the  beginning  of  every 
quarter,  the  probable  receipts  and  expenditures  of  the  quar- 
ter ;  and  if,  in  their  opinion,  the  receipts,  with  the  money  in 
the  treasury,  should  exceed  the  estimated  expenditure  by  a  cer- 


SPEECHES.  543 

tain  sum,  say  $5,000,000,  the  excess  should  be  vested  in  State 
stocks  ;  and  if  it  should  fall  short  of  that  sum,  a  sufficient 
amount  of  the  stocks  should  be  sold  to  make  up  the  deficit. 
We  have  thus  presented  for  consideration  the  important  sub- 
ject of  the  surplus  revenue,  and  with  it  the  question  so  anx- 
iously and  universally  asked,  What  shall  be  done  with  the  sur- 
plus ?  Shall  it  be  expended  by  the  Government,  or  remain 
where  it  is,  or  be  disposed  of  as  proposed  by  the  Senator  ?  or, 
if  not,  what  other  disposition  shall  be  made  of  it  ?  questions, 
the  investigation  of  which  necessarily  embraces  the  entire 
circle  of  our  policy,  and  on  the  decision  of  which  the  future 
destiny  of  the  country  may  depend. 

But  before  we  enter  on  the  discussion  of  this  important 
question,  it  will  be  proper  to  ascertain  what  will  be  the 
probable  available  means  of  the  year,  in  order  that  some  con- 
ception may  be  formed  of  the  probable  surplus  which  may 
remain,  by  comparing  it  with  the  appropriations  that  may 
be  authorized. 

According  to  the  late  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  there  were  deposited  in  the  several  banks  a  little 
upwards  of  $33,000,000  at  the  termination  of  the  first  quar- 
ter of  the  year,  not  including  the  sum  of  about  $3,000,000 
deposited  by  the  disbursing  agents  of  the  Government.  The 
same  report  stated  the  receipts  of  the  quarter  at  about 
$11,000,000,  of  which  lands  and  customs  yielded  nearly  an 
equal  amount.  Assuming  for  the  three  remaining  quarters 
an  equal  amount,  it  would  give,  for  the  entire  receipts  of  the 
year,  $44,000,000.  I  agree  with  the  Senator,  that  this  sum 
is  too  large.  The  customs  will  probably  average  an  amount 
throughout  the  year  corresponding  with  the  receipts  of  the 
first  quarter,  but  there  probably  will  be  a  considerable  fall- 
ing off  in  the  receipts  from  the  public  lands.  Assuming 
$7,000,000  as  the  probable  amount,  which  I  presume  will  be 
ample,  the  receipts  of  the  year,  subtracting  that  sum  from 
$44,000,000,  will  be  $37,000,000 ;  and  subtracting  from 


544  SPEECHES 

this,  $11,000,000,  the  receipts  of  the  first  quarter,  would 
leave  $26,000,000  as  the  probable  receipts  of  the  last  three 
quarters.  Add  to  this  sum  $33,000,000,  the  amount  in  tho 
treasury  on  the  last  day  of  the  first  quarter,  and  it  gives 
$59,000,000.  To  this  add  the  amount  of  stock  in  the 
United  States  Bank,  which,  at  the  market  price,  is  worth  at 
least  ,$7,000,000,  and  we  have  $66,000,000,  which  I  con- 
sider as  the  least  amount  at  which  the  probable  available 
means  of  the  year  can  be  fairly  estimated.  It  will,  probably, 
very  considerably  exceed  this  amount.  The  range  may  be 
put  down  at  between  $66,000,000  and  $73,000,000,  which 
may  be  considered  as  the  two  extremes  between  which 
the  means  of  the  year  may  vibrate.  But,  in  order  to  be  safe, 
I  have  assumed  the  least  of  the  two. 

The  first  question  which  I  propose  to  consider  is,  Shall 
this  sum  be  expended  by  the  Government  in  the  course  of 
the  year  ?  A  sum  nearly  equal  to  the  entire  debt  of  the 
war  of  the  Kevomtion,  by  which  the  liberty  and  independence 
of  these  States  were  established ;  more  than  five  times 
greater  than  the  expenditure  of  the  Government  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  present  administration, — deducting  the 
payments  on  account  of  the  public  debt, — and  more  than 
four  times  greater  than  the  average  annual  expenditure  of 
the  present  administration,  making  the  same  deduction, 
extravagant  as  its  expenditure  has  been.  The  very  magni- 
tude of  the  sum  decides  the  question  against  expenditure. 
It  may  be  wasted,  thrown  away,  but  it  cannot  be  expended. 
There  are  not  objects  on  which  to  expend  it ;  for  proof  of 
which  I  appeal  to  the  appropriations  already  made  and  con- 
templated. We  have  passed  the  navy  appropriations,  which, 
as  liberal  as  they  are  admitted  to  be  on  all  sides,  are  raised  only 
about  $2,000,000  compared  with  the  appropriations  of  last 
year.  The  appropriations  for  fortifications,  supposing  the  bills 
now  pending  should  pass,  will  amount  to  about  $3,500,000, 
and  would  exceed  the  ordinary  appropriations,  assuming  them 


SPEECHES.  545 

at  $1,000,000,  which  I  hold  to  be  ample,  by  $2,500,000. 
Add  a  million  for  ordnance,  seven  or  eight  for  Indian  treaties, 
and  four  for  Indian  wars,  and  supposing  the  companies  of  the 
regular  army  to  be  filled  as  recommended  by  the  war  depart- 
ment, the  aggregate  amount,  including  the  ordinary  expendi- 
tures, would  be  between  thirty  and  thirty-five  millions,  which 
would  leave  a  balance  of  at  least  $30,000,000  in  the  treasury 
at  the  end  of  the  year. 

But  suppose  objects  could  be  devised  on  which  to  expend 
the  whole  of  the  available  means  of  the  year,  it  would  still  be 
impossible  to  make  the  expenditure  without  immense  waste 
and  confusion.  To  expend  so  large  an  amount,  regularly 
and  methodically,  would  require  a  vast  increase  of  able  and 
experienced  disbursing  officers,  and  a  great  enlargement  of 
the  organization  of  the  Government,  in  all  the  branches  con- 
nected with  disbursements.  To  effect  such  an  enlargement, 
and  to  give  suitable  organization,  placed  under  the  control  of 
skilful  and  efficient  officers,  must  necessarily  be  a  work  of 
time  ;  but,  without  it,  so  sudden  and  great  an  increase  of  ex- 
penditure would  necessarily  be  followed  by  inextricable  con- 
fusion and  heavy  losses. 

But  suppose  this  difficulty  overcome,  and  suitable  objects 
be  devised,  would  it  be  advisable  to  make  the  expendi- 
ture ?  Would  it  be  wise  to  draw  off  so  vast  an  amount  of 
productive  labor,  to  be  employed  in  unproductive  objects — in 
building  fortifications,  dead  walls,  and  in  lining  the  interior 
frontier  with  a  large  military  force,  neither  of  which  would 
add  a  cent  to  the  productive  power  of  the  country  ? 

The  ordinary  expenditure  of  the  Government,  under  the 
present  administration,  may  be  estimated,  say  at  $18,000,000, 
a  sum  exceeding  by  five  or  six  millions  what,  in  my  opinion, 
is  sufficient  for  a  just  and  efficient  administration  of  the 
Government.  Taking  eighteen  from  sixty-six  would  leave 
forty-eight  millions  as  the  surplus,  if  the  affairs  of  the  Gov- 
ernment had  been  so  administered  as  to  avoid  the  heavy 
VOL.  ii.  35 


546  SPEECHES. 

expenditures  of  tlie  year,  which  I  firmly  believe,  by  early 
and  prudent  management,  might  have  been  effected.  The 
expenditure  of  this  sum,  estimating  labor  at  $20  a  month, 
would  require  200,000  operatives,  equal  to  one-third  of  the 
whole  number  of  laborers  employed  in  producing  the  great 
staple  of  our  country,  which  is  spreading  wealth  and  pros- 
perity over  the  land,  and  controlling,  in  a  great  measure,  the 
commerce  and  manufactures  of  the  world.  But  take  what 
will  be  the  actual  surplus,  and  estimate  that  at  half  the 
sum  which,  with  prudence  and  economy,  it  might  have  been, 
and  it  would  require  the  subtraction  of  100,000  operatives 
from  their  present  useful  employment,  to  be  employed  in  the 
unproductive  service  of  the  Government.  Would  it,  I  again 
repeat,  be  wise  to  draw  off  this  immense  mass  of  productive 
labor,  in  order  to  employ  it  in  building  fortifications  and  swell- 
ing the  military  establishment  of  the  country  ?  Would  it  add 
to  the  strength  of  the  Union,  or  give  increased  security  to  its 
liberty,  or  accelerate  its  prosperity  ?  the  great  objects  for 
which  the  Government  was  constituted. 

To  ascertain  how  the  strength  of  any  country  may  be 
best  developed,  its  peculiar  state  and  condition  must  be  taken 
into  consideration.  Looking  to  ours  with  this  view,  who  can 
doubt  that,  next  to  our  free  institutions,  the  main  source  of 
our  growing  greatness  and  power  is  to  be  found  in  our  great 
and  astonishing  increase  of  numbers,  wealth,  and  facility  of 
intercourse  ?  If  we  desire  to  see  our  country  powerful, 
we  ought  to  avoid  any  measure  opposed  to  their  develop- 
ment, and,  in  particular,  to  make  the  smallest  possible 
draught,  consistent  with  our  peace  and  security,  on  the  pro- 
ductive powers  of  the  country.  Let  these  have  the  freest 
possible  play.  Leave  the  resources  of  individuals  under 
their  own  direction,  to  be  employed  in  advancing  their  own 
and  their  country's  wealth  and  prosperity,  with  the  extrac- 
tion of  the  least  amount  required  for  the  expenditure  of  the 
Government ;  and  draw  off  not  a  single  laborer  from  his  pre- 


SPEECHES.  547 

sent  productive  pursuits  to  the  unproductive  employment 
of  the  Government,  excepting  such  as  the  public  service  may 
render  indispensable.  Who  can  doubt  that  such  a  policy 
would  add  infinitely  more  to  the  power  and  strength  of  the 
country  than  the  extravagant  schemes  of  spending  millions  on 
fortifications  and  the  increase  of  the  military  establishment  ? 

Let  us  next  examine  how  the  liberty  of  the  country  may 
be  affected  by  the  scheme  of  disposing  of  the  surplus  by  dis- 
bursements. And  here  I  would  ask,  Is  the  liberty  of  the 
country  at  present  in  a  secure  and  stable  condition  ?  and, 
if  not,  by  what  is  it  endangered  ?  and  will  an  increase  of 
disbursements  augment  or  diminish  the  danger. 

Whatever  may  be  the  diversity  of  opinion  on  other  points^ 
there  is  not  an  intelligent  individual  of  any  party,  who  regards/ 
his  reputation,  that  will  venture  to  deny  that  the  liberty  ol 
the  country  is  at  this  time  more  insecure  and  unstable  thar| 
it  ever  has  been.     We  all  know  that  there  is  in  every  portion! 
of  the  Union,  and  with  every  party,  a  deep  feeling  that  our* 
political  institutions  are  undergoing  a  great  and  hazardousl 
change.    Nor  is  the  feeling  much  less  strong,  that  the  vast  in-  i 
crease  of  the  patronage  and  influence  of  the  Government  is  the  \ 
cause  of  the  great  and  fearful  change  which  is  so  extensively  \ 
affecting  the  character  of  our  people  and  institutions.     The  | 
effect  of  increasing  the  expenditures  at  this  time,  so  as  to  ab-  \ 
sorb  the  surplus,  would  be  to  double  the  number  of  those  who  \ 
live,  or  expect  to  live,  by  the  Government,  and,  in  the  same 
degree,  to  augment  its  patronage  and  influence,  and  accelerate  v 
that  downward  course  which,  if  not  arrested,  must  speedily  J 
terminate  in  the  overthrow  of  our  free  institutions. 

These  views  I  hold  to  be  decisive  against  the  wild  attempt 
to  absorb  the  immense  means  of  the  Government  by  the  ex- 
penditures of  the  year.  In  fact,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
individuals,  all  seem  to  regard  the  scheme  either  as  imprac- 
ticable or  unsafe  ;  but  there  are  others,  who,  while  they  con- 
demn the  attempt  to  dispose  of  the  surplus  by  immediate  ex- 


548  SPEECHES. 

penditures,  "believe  it  can  be  safely  and  expediently  expend- 
ed in  a  period  of  four  or  five  years,  on  what  they  choose  tc 
call  the  defences  of  the  country. 

In  order  to  determine  how  far  this  opinion  may  be  correct, 
it  will  be  necessary  first  to  ascertain  what  will  be  the  avail- 
able means  of  the  next  four  or  five  years  ;  by  comparing  which 
with  what  ought  to  be  the  expenditure,  we  may  determine 
whether  the  plan  would,  or  would  not,  be  expedient.  In 
making  the  calculation,  I  will  take  the  term  of  five  years,  in- 
cluding the  present,  and  which  will,  of  course,  include  1840, 
after  the  termination  of  which,  the  duties  above  twenty  per 
cent,  are  to  go  off,  by  the  provisions  of  the  Compromise  Act, 
in  eighteen  months,  when  the  revenue  is  to  be  reduced  to  the 
economical  and  just  wants  of  the  Government. 

The  available  means  of  the  present  year,  as  I  have  al- 
ready shown,  will  equal  at  least  $66,000,000.  That  of  the 
next  succeeding  four  years  (including  1840)  may  be  as- 
sumed to  be  21,000,000  annually.  The  reason  for  this  as- 
sumption may  be  seen  in  the  report  of  the  select  committee 
at  the  last  session,  which  I  have  reviewed,  and  in  the  cor- 
rectness of  which  I  feel  increased  confidence.  The  amount 
may  fall  short  of,  but  will  certainly  not  exceed,  the  estimate 
in  the  report,  unless  some  unforeseen  event  should  occur. 
Assuming,  then,  $21,000,000  as  the  average  receipts  of  the 
next  four  years,  it  will  give  an  aggregate  of  $84,000,000, 
which,  added  to  the  available  means  of  this  year,  will  give 
$150,000,000  as  the  sum  that  wiU  be  at  the  disposal  of  the 
G-overnment  for  the  period  assumed.  Divide  this  sum  by 
five,  the  number  of  years,  and  it  will  give  $30,000,000  as  the 
average  annual  available  means  of  the  period. 

The  next  question  for  consideration  is,  Will  it  be  expedi- 
ent to  raise  the  disbursements  during  the  period  to  an  average 
expenditure  of  $30,000,000  annually  ?  The  first  and  strong 
objection  to  the  scheme  is,  that  it  would  leave  in  the  deposit 
banks  a  heavy  surplus  during  the  greater  part  of  the  time, — 


549 

beginning  withasurplus  of  upward  of  thirty  millions  at  thecom- 
mencement  of  next  year,  and  decreasing  at  the  rate  of  eight 
or  nine  millions  a  year  till  the  termination  of  the  period. 
But,  passing  this  objection  by,  I  meet  the  question  directly. 
It  would  be  highly  inexpedient  and  dangerous  to  attempt  to 
keep  up  the  disbursements  at  so  high  a  rate.  I  ask,  On  what 
shall  this  money  be  expended  ?  Shall  it  be  expended  by  an 
increase  of  the  military  establishment  ?  by  an  enlargement 
of  the  appropriations  for  fortifications,  ordnance,  and  the 
navy,  far  beyond  what  is  proposed  for  the  present  year? 
Have  those  who  advocate  the  scheme  reflected  to  what  ex- 
tent this  enlargement  must  be  carried  to  absorb  so  great  a 
sum  ?  Even  this  year,  with  the  extraordinary  expenditure 
upon  Indian  treaties  and  Indian  wars,  and  with  profuse  ex- 
penditures in  every  other  branch  of  service,  the  aggregate 
amount  of  appropriations  will  not  greatly  exceed  §30,000,000, 
and  that  of  disbursements  will  not,  probably,  equal  that  sum. 

To  what  extent,  then,  must  the  appropriations  for  the 
army,  the  navy,  the  fortifications,  and  the  like,  be  carried,  in 
order  to  absorb  this  sum,  especially  with  a  declining  expen- 
diture in  several  branches  of  the  service,  particularly  in  the 
pensions,  which,  during  the  period,  will  fall  off  more  than  a 
million  of  dollars  ?  But,  in  order  to  perceive  fully  the  folly 
and  danger  of  the  scheme,  it  will  be  necessary  to  extend  our 
view  beyond  1842,  in  order  to  form  some  opinion  of  what 
will  be  the  income  of  the  Government  when  the  tariff  shall  be 
so  reduced,  under  the  Compromise  Act,  that  no  duty  shall 
exceed  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  I  know  that  any  esti- 
mate made  at  this  time  cannot  be  considered  much  more 
than  conjectural ;  but  still,  it  would  be  imprudent  to  adopt 
a  system  of  expenditure  now,  without  taking  into  consider- 
ation the  probable  state  of  the  revenue  a  few  years  hence. 

After  bestowing  due  reflection  on  the  subject,  I  am  of  the 
impression  that  the  income  from  the  imposts,  after  the  pe- 
riod in  question,  will  not  exceed  $10,000,000.  It  will  prob- 


550  SPEECHES. 

ably  fall  below,  rather  than  rise  above,  that  sum.  I  assume 
as  the  basis  of  this  estimate,  that  our  consumption  of  foreign 
articles  will  not  then  exceed  $150,000,000.  We  aU  kno\< 
that  the  capacity  of  the  country  to  consume  depends  upon 
the  value  of  its  domestic  exports,  and  the  profits  of  its  com- 
merce and  navigation.  Of  its  domestic  exports  it  would  not 
be  safe  to  assume  any  considerable  increase  in  any  article  ex- 
cept cotton.  To  what  extent  the  production  and  consumption 
of  this  great  staple,  which  puts  in  motion  so  vast  an  amount  of 
the  industry  and  commerce  of  the  world,  may  be  increased 
between  now  and  1842,  it  is  difficult  to  conjecture  ;  'but  I 
deem  it  unsafe  to  suppose  that  it  can  be  so  increased  as  to 
extend  the  capacity  of  the  country  to  consume  beyond  the 
limits  I  have  assigned.  Assuming,  then,  the  amount  which 
I  have,  and  dividing  the  imports  into  free  and  dutiable  arti- 
cles, the  latter,  according  to  the  existing  proportion  between 
the  two  descriptions,  would  amount  in  value  to  something 
less  than  $70,000,000.  According  to  the  Compromise  Act 
no  duty  after  the  period  in  question,  can  exceed  twenty  per 
cent.,  and  the  rates  would  range  from  that  down  to  five  or 
six  per  cent.  Taking  fifteen  per  cent,  as  the  average,  which 
would  be,  probably,  full  high,  and  allowing  for  the  expenses 
of  collection,  the  net  income  would  be  something  less  than 
$10,000,000. 

The  income  from  public  lands  is  still  more  conjectural 
than  that  from  customs.  There  are  so  many,  and  such  vari- 
ous causes  in  operation  affecting  this  source  of  the  public  in- 
come, that  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  form  even  a  conjectu- 
ral estimate  as  to  its  amount,  beyond  the  current  year.  But, 
in  the  midst  of  this  uncertainty,  one  fact  may  be  safely  as- 
sumed, that  the  purchasers  during  the  last  year,  and  thus  far 
during  this,  greatly  exceed  the  steady,  progressive  demand 
for  public  lands,  from  increased  population,  and  the  conse- 
quent emigration  to  the  new  States  and  territories.  Many 
of  the  purchases  have  been,  unquestionably,  upon  specula- 


SPEECHES.  551 

tion,  with  a  view  to  resales  ;  and  must,  of  course,  come  into 
market  hereafter  in  competition  with  the  lands  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  to  that  extent  reduce  the  income  from  their 
sales.  Estimating  the  demand  for  public  lands  even  from 
what  it  was  previous  to  the  recent  large  sales,  and  taking 
into  estimate  the  increased  population  and  wealth  of  the 
country,  I  do  not  consider  it  safe  to  assume  more  than 
$5,000,000  annually  from  this  branch  of  the  revenue,  which, 
added  to  the  customs,  would  give  for- the  annual  receipts  be- 
tween fourteen  and  fifteen  millions  of  dollars  after  1842. 

I  now  ask  whether  it  would  be  prudent  to  raise  the  pub- 
lic expenditures  to  the  sum  of  $30,000,000  annually  during 
the  intermediate  period,  with  the  prospect  that  they  must 
be  suddenly  reduced  to  half  that  amount  ?  Who  does  not 
see  the  fierce  conflict  which  must  follow  between  those  who 
may  be  interested  in  keeping  up  the  expenditures,  and  those 
who  have  an  equal  interest  against  an  increase  of  the  duties 
as  the  means  of  keeping  them  up  ?  I  appeal  to  the  Senators 
from  the  South,  whose  constituents  have  so  deep  an  interest 
in  low  duties,  to  resist  a  course  so  impolitic,  unwise,  and  ex- 
travagant— and  which,  if  adopted,  might  again  renew  the  tar- 
iff, so  recently  thrown  off  by  such  hazardous  and  strenuous 
efforts,  with  all  its  oppression  and  disaster.  Let  us  remem- 
ber what  occurred  in  the  fatal  session  of  1828.  With  a  folly 
unparalleled,  Congress  then  raised  the  duties  to  a  rate  so 
enormous  as  to  average  one-half  the  value  of  the  imports, 
when  on  the  eve  of  discharging  the  debt,  and  when,  of  course, 
there  would  be  no  objects  on  which  the  immense  income  from 
such  extravagant  duties  could  be  justly  and  constitutionally 
expended.  It  is  amazing  that  there  was  such  blindness  then 
as  not  to  see  what  has  since  followed — the  sudden  discharge 
of  the  debt,  and  an  overflowing  treasury,  without  the  means 
of  absorbing  the  surplus  ;  the  violent  conflict  resulting  from 
such  a  state  of  things  ;  and  the  vast  increase  of  the  power 
and  patronage  of  the  Government,  with  all  its  corrupting  con- 


552  SPEECHES. 

sequences.  We  are  now  about  to  commit  an  error  of  a  differ- 
ent character  :  to  raise  the  expenditure  far  beyond  all  exam- 
ple, in  time  of  peace,  and  with  a  decreasing  revenue — which 
must,  with  equal  certainty,  bring  on  another  conflict,  not 
much  less  dangerous,  in  which  the  struggle  will  not  be  to 
find  objects  to  absorb  an  overflowing  treasury,  but  to  devise 
means  to  continue  an  expenditure  far  beyond  the  just  and 
legitimate  wants  of  the  country.  It  is  easy  to  foresee  that, 
if  we  are  thus  blindly  to  go  on  in  the  management  of  our  af- 
fairs, without  regard  to  the  future,  the  frequent  and  violent 
concussions  which  must  follow  from  such  folly  cannot  but  end 
in  a  catastrophe  that  will  ingulf  our  political  institutions. 

With  such  decided  objections  to  the  dangerous  and  ex- 
travagant scheme  of  absorbing  the  surplus  by  disbursements, 
I  proceed  to  the  next  question,  Shall  the  public  money  re- 
main where  it  now  is  ?  Shall  the  present  extraordinary 
state  of  things,  without  example  or  parallel,  continue — of  a 
Government,  calling  itself  free,  exacting  from  the  people 
millions  beyond  what  it  can  expend,  and  placing  that  vast 
sum  in  the  custody  of  a  few  monopolizing  corporations,  se- 
lected at  the  sole  will  of  the  Executive,  and  continued  during 
his  pleasure,  to  be  used  as  their  own  from  the  tune  it  is  col- 
lected till  it  is  disbursed  ?  To  this  question  there  must 
burst  from  the  lips  of  every  man  who  loves  his  country  and 
its  institutions,  and  who  is  the  enemy  of  monopoly,  injustice, 
and  oppression,  an  indignant  No.  And  here  let  me  express 
the  pleasure  I  feel  that  the  Senator  from  New- York,  in 
moving  his  amendment,  however  objectionable  his  scheme, 
has  placed  himself  in  opposition  to  the  continuance  of  the 
present  unheard-of  and  dangerous  state  of  things ;  and  I  add, 
as  a  simple  act  of  justice,  that  the  tone  and  temper  of  his 
remarks  in  support  of  his  amendment,  were  characterized  by 
a  courtesy  and  liberality  which  I,  on  my  part,  shall  endeavor 
to  imitate.  But  I  fear,  notwithstanding  this  favorable  indi- 
cation in  so  influential  a  quarter,  the  very  magnitude  of  the 


SPEECHES.  553 

evil  (too  great  to  be  concealed)  will  but  serve  to  perpetuate 
it.  So  great  and  various  are  the  interests  enlisted  in  its 
favor,  that  I  greatly  fear  all  the  efforts  of  the  wise  and 
patriotic  to  arrest  it  will  prove  unavailing.  At  the  head  of 
these  stand  the  depository  banks  themselves,  with  their  nu 
merous  stockholders  and  officers  ;  with  their  $40,000,000  of 
capital,  and  an  equal  amount  of  public  deposits,  associated  in- 
to one  great  combination  extending  over  the  whole  Union,  and 
under  the  influence  and  control  of  the  treasury  department. 
The  whole  weight  of  this  mighty  combination,  so  deeply  in- 
terested in  the  continuance  of  the  present  state  of  things,  is 
opposed  to  any  change.  To  this  powerful  combination  must 
be  added  the  numerous  and  influential  body  who  are  de- 
pendent on  banks  to  meet  their  engagements,  and  who, 
whatever  may  be  their  political  opinions,  must  be  alarmed 
at  any  change  which  may  limit  their  discounts  and  accom- 
modations. Then  come  the  stock-jobbers,  a  growing  and 
formidable  class,  who  live  by  raising  and  depressing  stocks, 
and  who  behold  in  the  present  state  of  things  the  most  favor- 
able opportunity  of  carrying  on  their  dangerous  and  corrupt- 
ing pursuits.  With  the  control  which  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  has  over  the  banks  of  deposit,  through  transfer 
warrants,  with  the  power  of  withdrawing  the  deposits  at 
pleasure,  he  may,  whenever  he  chooses,  raise  or  depress  the 
stock  of  any  bank  ;  and,  if  disposed  to  use  this  tremendous 
power  for  corrupt  purposes,  may  make  the  fortunes  of  the 
initiated,  and  overwhelm  in  sudden  ruin  those  not  in  the 
secret.  To  the  stock-jobbers  must  be  added  speculators  of 
every  hue  and  form  ;  and,  in  particular,  the  speculators  in 
public  lands,  who,  by  the  use  of  the  public  funds,  are  rapidly 
divesting  the  people  of  the  noble  patrimony  left  by  our  an- 
cestors in  the  public  domain,  by  giving  in  exchange  what 
may,  in  the  end,  prove  to  be  broken  credit  and  worthless 
rags.  To  these  we  must  add  the  artful  and  crafty  politicians, 
who  wield  this  mighty  combination  of  interests  for  political 


554  SPEECHES. 

purposes.  I  am  anxious  to  avoid  mingling  party  politics  IB 
this  discussion ;  and,  that  I  may  not  even  seem  to  do  so, 
I  shall  not  attempt  to  exhibit,  in  all  its  details,  the  fearful, 
and,  I  was  about  to  add,  the  overwhelming  power  which  the 
present  state  of  things  places  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
have  control  of  the  Government,  and  which,  if  it  be  not 
wielded  to  overthrow  our  institutions  and  destroy  all  respon- 
sibility, must  be  attributed  to  their  want  of  inclination,  and 
not  to  their  want  of  means. 

Such  is  the  power  and  influence  interested  to  continue 
the  public  money  where  it  is  now  deposited.  To  these  there 
are  opposed  the  honest,  virtuous,  and  patriotic  of  every  party, 
who  behold  in  the  continuance  of  the  present  state  of  things 
the  almost  certain  convulsion  and  overthrow  of  our  liberty. 
There  would  be  found,  on  the  same  side,  the  great  mass  of 
the  industrious  and  labouring  portion  of  the  community, 
whose  hard  earnings  are  extracted  from  them  without  their 
knowledge,  were  it  not  that  what  is  improperly  taken  from 
them  is  successfully  used  as  the  means  of  deceiving  and 
controlling  them.  If  such  were  not  the  case — if  those  who 
work  could  see  how  those  who  profit  are  enriched  at  their 
expense — the  present  state  of  things  would  not  be  endured 
for  a  moment ;  but  as  it  is,  I  fear  that,  from  misconception, 
and  consequent  want  of  union  and  co-operation,  things  may 
continue  as  they  are,  till  it  will  be  too  late  to  apply  a  remedy. 
I  trust,  however,  that  such  will  not  be  the  fact ;  that  the 
people  will  be  roused  from  their  false  security  ;  and  that 
Congress  will  refuse  to  adjourn  till  an  efficient  remedy  is 
applied.  In  this  hope,  I  recur  to  the  inquiry,  What  shall 
that  remedy  be  ?  Shall  we  adopt  the  measure  recommended 
by  the  Senator  from  New- York,  which,  as  has  been  stated, 
proposes  to  authorize  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund  to  ascertain  the  probable  income  of  each  quarter,  and, 
if  there  should  be  a  probable  excess  above  $5,000,000,  to 
vest  the  surplus  in  the  purchase  of  State  stocks ;  but,  if 


SPEECHES.  555 

there  shall  be  a  deficiency,  to  sell  so  much  of  the  stock  pre- 
viously purchased  as  would  make  up  the  difference  ? 

I  regret  that  the  Senator  has  not  furnished  a  statement 
of  facts  sufficiently  full  to  enable  us  to  form  an  opinion  of 
what  will  be  the  practical  operation  of  his  scheme.  He  has 
omitted,  for  instance,  to  state  what  is  the  aggregate  amount 
of  stocks  issued  by  the  several  States — a  fact  indispensable 
in  order  to  ascertain  how  the  price  of  the  stocks  would  be 
affected  by  the  application  of  the  surplus  to  their  purchase. 
All  who  are  in  the  least  familiar  with  subjects  of  this  kind, 
must  know  that  the  price  of  stocks  rises  proportionably 
with  the  amount  of  the  sum  applied  to  their  purchase. 
I  have  already  shown  that  the  probable  surplus  at  the  end 
of  this  year,  notwithstanding  the  extravagance  of  the  appro- 
priations, will  be  between  thirty  and  thirty-five  millions ; 
and,  before  we  can  decide  understandingly,  whether  this 
great  sum  can  with  propriety  be  applied  as  the  Senator  pro- 
poses, we  should  know  whether  the  amount  of  State  stocks 
be  sufficient  to  absorb  it,  without  raising  their  price  extrava- 
gantly high. 

The  Senator  should  also  have  informed  us,  not  only  as 
to  the  amount  of  the  stock,  but  how  it  is  distributed  among 
the  States,  in  order  to  enable  us  to  determine  whether  his 
scheme  would  operate  equally  between  them.  In  the  absence 
of  correct  information  on  both  of  these  points,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  use  such  as  we  may  possess,  however  defective  and 
uncertain,  in  order  to  make  up  our  mind  on  his  amendment. 
We  all  know,  then,  that  while  several  of  the  States  have  no 
stocks,  and  many  a  very  inconsiderable  amount,  three  of  the 
large  States  (Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  New- York)  have  a  very 
large  amount — not  less  in  the  aggregate,  if  I  am  correctly  in- 
formed, than  thirty-five  or  forty  millions.  What  amount  is  held 
by  the  rest  of  the  States  is  uncertain ;  but  I  suppose  it  may 
be  safely  assumed  that,  taking  the  whole,  it  is  less  than  that 
held  by  those  States.  With  these  facts,  it  cannot  be  doubted 


556  SPEECHES. 

that  the  application  of  the  surplus,  as  proposed  by  the 
Senator,  would  be  exceedingly  unequal  among  the  States, 
and  that  the  advantage  of  the  application  would  mainly 
accrue  to  these  States.  To  most  of  these  objections,  the 
Senator,  while  he  does  not  deny  that  the  application  of  the 
surplus  will  greatly  raise  the  price  of  stocks,  insists  that 
the  States  issuing  them  will  not  derive  any  benefit  from  the 
advance,  and,  consequently,  have  no  interest  in  the  question 
of  the  application  of  the  surplus  to  their  purchase. 

If  by  States  he  means  the  governments  of  the  States,  the 
view  of  the  Senator  may  be  correct.  They  may,  as  he  says, 
have  but  little  interest  in  the  market  value  of  their  stocks,  as 
it  must  be  redeemed  by  the  same  amount,  whether  that  be 
high  or  low.  But  if  we  take  a  more  enlarged  view,  and  com- 
prehend the  people  of  the  States  as  well  as  their  government, 
the  argument  entirely  fails.  The  Senator  will  not  deny  that 
the  holders  have  a  deep  interest  in  the  application  of  so  large 
a  sum  as  the  present  surplus  to  the  purchase  of  their  stocks. 
He  will  not  deny  that  such  application  must  greatly  advance 
the  price  ;  and,  of  course,  in  determining  whether  the  States 
having  stocks  will  be  benefited  by  applying  the  surplus  as  he 
proposes,  we  must  first  ascertain  who  are  the  holders.  Where 
do  they  reside  ?  Are  they  foreigners  residing  abroad  ?  If 
so,  would  it  be  wise  to  apply  the  public  money  so  as  to  ad- 
vance the  interests  of  foreigners,  to  whom  the  States  are 
under  no  obligation  but  honestly  to  pay  to  them  the  debts 
which  they  have  contracted  ?  But  if  not  held  by  foreigners, 
are  they  held  by  citizens  of  such  States  ?  If  such  be  the 
fact,  will  the  Senator  deny  that  those  States  will  be  deeply 
interested  in  the  application  of  the  surplus,  as  proposed  in 
his  amendment,  when  the  effects  of  such  application  must  be, 
as  is  conceded  on  all  sides,  greatly  to  enhance  the  price  of  the 
stocks,  and,  consequently,  to  increase  the  wealth  of  their 
citizens  ?  Let  us  suppose  that,  instead  of  purchasing  the 
stocks  of  the  States  in  which  his  constituents  are  interested, 


SPEECHES.  557 

the  Senator's  amendment  had  proposed  to  apply  the  present 
enormous  surplus  to  the  purchase  of  cotton  or  slaves,  in  which 
the  constituents  of  the  Southern  Senators  are  interested, 
would  any  one  doubt  that  the  cotton-growing  or  slaveholding 
States  would  have  a  deep  interest  in  the  question  ?  It  will 
not  be  denied  that,  if  so  applied,  their  price  would  be  greatly 
advanced,  and  the  wealth  of  their  citizens  proportionably 
increased.  Precisely  the  same  effect  would  result  from  the 
application  to  the  purchase  of  stocks,  with  like  benefits  to  the 
citizens  of  the  States  which  have  issued  large  amounts  of 
stock.  The  principle  is  the  same  in  both  cases. 

But  there  is  another  view  of  the  subject  which  demands 
most  serious  consideration.  Assuming,  what  will  not  be 
questioned,  that  the  application  of  the  surplus,  as  proposed 
by  the  amendment,  will  be  very  unequal  among  the  States, 
some  having  little  or  none,  and  others  a  large  amount  of 
stocks,  the  result  would  necessarily  be  to  create,  in  effect,  the 
relation  of  debtor  and  creditor  between  the  States.  The 
States  whose  stocks  might  be  purchased  by  the  commissioners 
would  become  the  debtors  of  the  Government ;  and  as  the 
Government  would,  in  fact,  be  but  the  agent  between  them 
and  the  other  States,  the  latter  would,  in  reality,  be  their 
creditors.  This  relation  between  them  could  not  fail  to  be 
productive  of  important  political  consequences,  which  would 
influence  all  the  operations  of  the  Government.  It  would, 
in  particular,  have  a  powerful  bearing  upon  the  presidential 
election  ;  the  debtor  and  creditor  States  each  striving  to  give 
such  a  result  to  the  elections  as  might  be  favorable  to  their 
respective  interests ;  the  one  to  exact,  and  the  other  to  ex- 
empt themselves  from  the  payment  of  the  debt.  Supposing 
the  three  great  States  to  which  I  have  referred,  whose  united 
influence  would  have  so  decided  a  control,  to  be  the  principal 
debtor  States,  as  would,  in  all  probability,  be  the  fact,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  result  would  be,  finally,  the  release  of 


the  debt,  and,  consequently,  a  corresponding  loss  to  the  cred- 
itor, and  gain  to  the  debtor  States. 

But  there  is  another  view  of  the  subject  still  more  de- 
serving, if  possible,  of  attention  than  either  of  those  which 
have  been  presented.  It  is  impossible  not  to  see,  after  what 
has  been  said,  that  the  power  proposed  to  be  conferred  by  the 
amendment  of  the  Senator,  of  applying  the  surplus  in  buying 
and  selling  the  stocks  of  the  States,  is  one  of  great  extent, 
and  calculated  to  have  powerful  influence,  not  only  on  a  large 
body  of  the  most  wealthy  and  influential  citizens  of  the  States 
which  have  issued  stocks,  but  on  the  States  themselves.  The 
next  question  is,  In  whom  is  the  exercise  of  this  power  to  be 
vested  ?  Where  shall  we  find  individuals  sufficiently  de- 
tached from  the  politics  of  the  day,  and  whose  virtue,  patriot- 
ism, disinterestedness,  and  firmness  can  raise  them  so  far 
above  political  and  sinister  motives  as  to  exercise  powers 
so  high  and  influential  exclusively  for  the  public  good,  with- 
out any  view  to  personal  or  political  aggrandizement  ?  Who 
has  the  amendment  selected  as  standing  aloof  from  politics, 
and  possessing  these  high  qualifications  ?  Who  are  the 
present  commissioners  of  the  sinking  fund,  to  whom  this  high 
and  responsible  trust  is  to  be  confided  ?  At  the  head  stands 
the  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  with  whom  the 
Chief-Justice  of  the  United  States,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  the  Attorney  General,  are 
associated  ;  all  party  men,  deeply  interested  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  power  hi  the  present  hands,  and  having  the  strongest 
motives  to  apply  the  vast  power  which  the  amendment  would 
confer  upon  them,  should  it  become  a  law,  to  party  purposes. 
I  do  not  say  it  would  be  so  applied  ;  but  I  must  ask,  Would 
it  be  prudent,  would  it  be  wise,  would  it 'be  seemly,  to  vest 
such  great  and  dangerous  powers  in  those  who  have  so  strong 
a  motive  to  abuse  it — and  who,  if  they  should  have  elevation 
and  virtue  enough  to  resist  the  temptation,  would  still  be 
suspected  of  having  used  the  power  for  sinister  and  corrupt 


SPEECHES.  559 

purposes?  I  am  persuaded,  in  drawing  the  amendment, 
the  Senator  from  New- York  has,  without  due  reflection  on 
the  impropriety  of  vesting  the  power  where  he  proposes,  in- 
advertently inserted  the  provision  which  he  has  ;  and  that,  on 
a  review,  he  will  concur  with  me,  that,  should  his  amendment 
be  adopted,  the  power  ought  to  be  vested  in  others,  less  ex- 
posed to  temptation,  and,  consequently,  less  exposed  to  sus- 
picion. 

I  have  now  stated  the  leading  objections  to  the  several 
modes  of  disposing  of  the  surplus  revenue  which  I  proposed  to 
consider  ;  and  the  question  again  recurs,  What  shall  be  done 
with  the  surplus  ?  The  Senate  is  not  uninformed  of  my 
opinion  on  this  important  subject.  Foreseeing  that  there 
would  be  a  large  surplus,  and  the  mischievous  consequences 
that  must  follow,  I  moved,  during  the  last  session,  for  a  select 
committee,  which,  among  other  measures,  reported  a  resolu- 
tion so  to  amend  the  constitution  as  to  authorize  the  tem- 
porary distribution  of  the  surplus  among  the  States  ;  but  so 
many  doubted  whether  there  would  be  a  surplus  at  the  time, 
that  it  rendered  all  prospect  of  carrying  the  resolution  hope- 
less. My  opinion  still  remains  unchanged,  that  the  measure 
then  proposed  was  the  best ;  but  so  rapid  has  been  the  accu- 
mulation of  the  surplus,  even  beyond  my  calculation,  and  so 
pressing  the  danger,  that  what  would  have  been  then  an  effi- 
cient remedy,  would  now  be  too  tardy  to  meet  the  danger ; 
and,  of  course,  another  remedy  must  be  devised,  more  speedy 
in  its  action. 

After  bestowing  on  the  subject  the  most  deliberate  atten- 
tion, I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  no  other  so 
safe,  so  efficient,  and  so  free  from  objections  as  the  one  I  have 
proposed,  of  depositing  the  surplus  that  may  remain  at  the 
termination  of  the  year,  in  the  treasuries  of  the  several  States, 
in  the  manner  provided  for  in  the  amendment.  But  the 
Senator  from  New- York  objects  to  the  measure,  that  it  would, 
in  effect,  amount  to  a  distribution — on  the  ground,  as  he  con- 


560  SPEECHES. 

ceives,  that  the  States  would  never  refund.  He  does  not 
doubt  but  that  they  would  refund,  if  called  on  by  the  Gov- 
ernment ;  but  he  says  that  Congress  will,  in  fact,  never  make 
the  call.  He  rests  this  conclusion  on  the  supposition  that 
there  would  be  a  majority  of  the  States  opposed  to  it.  He 
admits,  in  case  the  revenue  should  become  deficient,  that 
the  Southern  or  staple  States  would  prefer  to  refund  their 
quota  rather  than  to  raise  the  imposts  to  meet  the  deficit ; 
but  he  insists  that  the  contrary  would  be  the  case  with  the 
manufacturing  States,  which  would  prefer  to  increase  the 
imposts  to  refunding  their  quota,  on  the  ground  that  the  in- 
crease of  the  duties  would  promote  the  interests  of  manu- 
factures. I  cannot  agree  with  the  Senator  that  those  "States 
would  assume  a  position  so  entirely  untenable  as  to  refuse 
to  refund  a  deposit  which  their  faith  would  be  plighted  to 
return,  and  rest  the  refusal  on  the  ground  of  preferring  to  lay 
a  tax,  because  it  would  be  a  bounty  to  them,  and  would  con- 
sequently, throw  the  whole  burden  of  the  tax  on  the  other 
States.  But,  be  this  as  it  may,  I  can  tell  the  Senator  that, 
if  they  should  take  a  course  so  unjust  and  monstrous,  he  may 
rest  assured  that  the  other  States  would  most  unquestionably 
resist  the  increase  of  the  imposts  ;  so  that  the  Government 
would  have  to  take  its  choice,  either  to  go  without  the  money, 
or  call  on  the  States  to  refund  the  deposits.  But  I  so  far 
agree  with  the  Senator  as  to  believe  that  Congress  would  be 
very  reluctant  to  make  the  call ;  that  it  would  not  make  it 
till,  from  the  wants  of  the  treasury,  it  should  become  abso- 
lutely necessary  ;  and  that,  in  order  to  avoid  such  necessity, 
it  would  resort  to  a  just  and  proper  economy  in  the  public 
expenditures  as  the  preferable  alternative.  I  see  in  this, 
however,  much  good  instead  of  evil.  The  Government  has 
long  since  departed  from  habits  of  economy,  and  fallen  into 
a  profusion,  a  waste,  and  an  extravagance  in  its  disbursements, 
rarely  equalled  by  any  free  state,  and  which  threatens  the 
most  disastrous  consequences. 


SPEECHES.  561 

But  I  am  happy  to  think  that  the  ground  on  which  the 
objection  of  the  Senator  stands  may  be  removed,  without 
materially  impairing  the  provisions  of  the  bill.  It  will  re- 
quire but  the  addition  of  a  few  words  to  remove  it,  by  giv- 
ing to  the  deposits  all  the  advantages,  without  the  objections, 
which  he  proposes  by  his  plan.  It  will  be  easy  to  provide 
that  the  States  shall  authorize  the  proper  officers  to  give  ne- 
gotiable certificates  of  deposit,  which  shall  not  bear  interest 
till  demanded,  when  they  shall  bear  the  usual  rates  till  paid. 
Such  certificates  would  be,  in  fact,  State  stocks,  every  way 
similar  to  that  in  which  the  Senator  proposes  to  vest  the  sur- 
plus, but  with  this  striking  superiority — that,  instead  of  being 
partial,  and  limited  to  a  few  States,  they  would  be  fairly  and 
justly  apportioned  among  the  several  States.  They  would 
have  another  striking  advantage  over  his.  They  would  cre- 
ate among  all  the  members  of  the  confederacy,  reciprocally, 
the  relation  of  debtor  and  creditor,  in  proportion  to  their  re- 
lative weight  in  the  Union ;  which,  in  effect,  would  leave 
them  in  their  present  relation,  and,  of  course,  avoid  the 
danger  that  would  result  from  his  plan,  which,  as  has  been 
shown,  would  necessarily  make  a  part  of  the  States  debt- 
ors to  the  rest,  with  all  the  dangers  resulting  from  such  re- 
lation. 

The  next  objection  of  the  Senator  is  to  the  ratio  of  dis- 
tribution, proposed  in  the  bill,  among  the  States,  which  he 
pronounces  to  be  unequal,  if  not  unconstitutional.  He  in- 
sists that  the  true  principle  would  be,  to  distribute  the  sur- 
plus among  the  States  in  proportion  to  the  representation  in 
the  House  of  ^Representatives,  without  including  the  Sena- 
tors, as  is  proposed  in  the  bill — for  which  he  relies  on  the  fact, 
that,  by  the  constitution,  representation  and  taxation  are  to 
be  apportioned  in  the  same  manner  among  the  States. 

The  Senate  will  see  that  the  effect  of  adopting  the  ratio 
supported  by  the  Senator  would  be  to  favor  the  large  States, 
while  that  in  the  bill  will  be  more  favorable  to  the  small. 
VOL.  ii. — 36 


562  SPEECHES. 

The  State  I  in  part  represent,  occupies  a  neutral  posi- 
tion between  the  two.  She  cannot  be  considered  either  a 
large  or  a  small  State,  forming,  as  she  does,  one  twenty- 
fourth  part  of  the  Union ;  and,  of  course,  it  is  the  same  to 
her  whichever  ratio  may  be  adopted.  But  I  prefer  the  one 
contained  in  my  amendment,  on  the  ground  that  it  represents 
the  relative  weight  of  the  States  in  the  Government.  It  is 
the  weight  assigned  to  them  in  the  choice  of  the  President 
and  Vice-President  in  the  electoral  college,  and,  of  course,  in 
the  administration  of  the  laws.  It  is  also  that  assigned  to 
them  in  the  making  of  the  laws  by  the  action  of  the  two 
Houses,  and  corresponds  very  nearly  to  their  weight  in  the 
judicial  department  of  the  Government — the  judges  being 
nominated  by  the  President  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate. 
In  addition,  I  was  influenced,  in  selecting  the  ratio,  by  the 
belief  that  it  was  a  wise  and  magnanimous  course,  in  case  of 
doubt,  to  favor  the  weaker  members  of  the  confederacy.  The 
larger  can  always  take  care  of  themselves ;  and,  to  avoid 
jealousy  and  improper  feelings,  ought  to  act  liberally  towards 
the  weaker  members  of  the  confederacy.  To  winch  may  be 
added,  that  I  am  of  the  impression — even  on  the  princi- 
ple assumed  by  the  Senator,  that  the  distribution  of  the  sur- 
plus ought  to  be  apportioned  on  the  ratio  of  direct  taxation 
(which  may  be  well  doubted) — the  ratio  which  I  support 
would  conform,  in  practice,  more  nearly  to  the  principle  than 
that  which  he  supports.  It  is  a  fact  not  generally  known, 
that  representation  in  the  other  House,  and  direct  taxes, 
should  they  be  laid,  would  be  very  far  from  being  equal,  al- 
though the  constitution  provides  that  they  shall  be.  The 
inequality  would  result  from  the  mode  of  apportioning  the 
representatives.  Instead  of  apportioning  them  among  the 
States,  as  near  as  may  be,  as  directed  by  the  constitution, 
an  artificial  mode  of  distribution  has  been  adopted,  which, 
in  its  effects,  gives  to  the  large  States  a  greater,  and  to  the 
small  a  less  number,  than  that  to  which  they  are  entitled. 


SPEECHES.  563 

I  would  refer  those  who  may  desire  to  understand  how  this 
inequality  is  effected,  to  the  discussion  in  this  body  on  the 
apportionment  bill  under  the  last  census.  So  great  is  this 
inequality,  that,  were  a  direct  tax  to  be  laid,  New- York,  for 
instance,  would  have  at  least  three  members  more  than  her 
apportionment  of  the  tax  would  require.  The  ratio  which  I 
have  proposed  would,  I  admit,  produce  as  great  an  inequality 
in  favor  of  some  of  the  small  States— particularly  the  old, 
whose  population  is  nearly  stationary ;  but  among  the  new 
and  growing  members  of  the  confederacy,  which  constitute 
the  greater  portion  of  the  small  States,  it  would  not  give 
a  larger  share  of  the  deposits  than  what  they  would  be 
entitled  to  on  the  principle  of  direct  taxes.  But  the  objec- 
tion of  the  Senator  to  the  ratio  of  distribution,  like  his  ob- 
jection to  the  condition  on  which  the  bill  proposes  to  make 
it,  is  a  matter  of  small  comparative  consequence.  I  am 
prepared,  in  the  spirit  of  concession,  to  adopt  either,  as  one 
or  the  other  may  be  more  acceptable  to  the  Senate. 

It  now  remains  to  compare  the  disposition  of  the  surplus 
proposed  in  the  bill  with  the  others  I  have  discussed ;  and 
unless  I  am  greatly  deceived,  it  possesses  great  advantages 
over  them.  Compared  with  the  scheme  of  expending  the 
surplus,  its  advantages  are,  that  it  would  avoid  the  ex- 
travagance and  waste  which  must  result  from  suddenly  more 
than  quadrupling  the  expenditures,  without  a  corresponding 
organization  in  the  disbursing  department  of  the  Government 
to  enforce  economy  and  responsibility.  It  would  also  avoid 
the  diversion  of  so  large  a  portion  of  the  industry  of  the 
country  from  its  present  useful  direction  to  unproductive  ob- 
jects, with  heavy  loss  to  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  coun- 
try, as  has  been  shown  ; — while  it  would,  at  the  same  time, 
avoid  the  increase  of  the  patronage  and  influence  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, with  all  their  corruption  and  danger  to  the  liberty 
and  institutions  of  the  country.  But  its  advantages  would 
not  be  limited  simply  to  avoiding  the  evil  of  extravagant  and 


564  SPEECHES. 

useless  disbursements.  It  would  confer  positive  benefits,  by 
enabling  the  States  to  discharge  their  debts,  and  complete  a 
system  of  internal  improvements,  by  railroads  and  canals, 
which  would  not  only  greatly  strengthen  the  bonds  of  the 
confederacy,  but  increase  its  power,  by  augmenting  infinitely 
our  resources  and  prosperity. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  compare  the  disposition  of 
the  surplus  which  is  proposed  in  the  bill  with  the  dangerous, 
and,  I  must  say,  wicked  scheme  of  leaving  the  public  funds 
where  they  are,  in  the  banks  of  deposit,  to  be  loaned  out  by 
those  institutions  to  speculators  and  partisans,  without  au- 
thority or  control  of  law. 

Compared  with  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Senator  from 
New- York,  it  is  sufficient,  to  prove  its  superiority,  to  say 
that,  while  it  avoids  all  the  objections  to  which  his  is  liable, 
it  at  the  same  time  possesses  all  the  advantages,  with  others 
peculiar  to  itself.  Among  these,  one  of  the  most  prominent 
is,  that  it  provides  the  only  efficient  remedy  for  the  deep- 
seated  disease  which  now  afflicts  the  body  politic,  and  which 
threatens  to  terminate  so  fatally,  unless  it  be  speedily  and  ef- 
fectually arrested. 

All  who  have  reflected  on  the  nature  of  our  complex  sys- 
tem of  government,  and  the  dangers  to  which  it  is  exposed, 
have  seen  that  it  is  susceptible,  from  its  structure,  to  two  dan- 
gers of  an  opposite  character — one  threatening  consolidation, 
and  the  other  anarchy  and  dissolution.  From  the  beginning 
of  the  Government,  we  find  a  difference  of  opinion  among 
the  wise  and  patriotic  as  to  which  the  Government  was  most 
exposed  :  one  part  believing  the  danger  was,  that  the  Gov- 
ernment would  absorb  the  reserved  powers  of  the  States, 
and  terminate  in  consolidation,  while  the  other  were  equally 
confident  that  the  States  would  absorb  the  powers  of  the 
Government,  and  the  system  end  in  anarchy  and  dissolution. 
It  was  this  diversity  of  opinion  which  gave  birth  to  the  two 
great,  honest,  and  patriotic  parties  which  so  long  divided  the 


SPEECHES.  565 

community,  and  to  the  many  political  conflicts  which  so  long 
agitated  the  country.  Time  has  decided  the  controversy. 
We  are  no  longer  left  to  doubt  that  the  danger  is  on  the 
side  of  this  Government ;  and  that,  if  not  arrested,  the  sys- 
tem must  terminate  in  an  entire  absorption  of  the  powers 
of  the  States. 

Looking  back,  with  the  light  which  experience  has  fur- 
nished, we  now  clearly  see  that  both  of  the  parties  took  a 
false  view  of  the  operation  of  the  system.  It  was  admitted 
by  both,  that  there  would  be  a  conflict  for  power  between 
the  Government  and  the  States,  arising  from  a  disposition  on 
the  part  of  those  who,  for  the  time  being,  exercised  the 
powers  of  the  Government  and  the  States,  to  enlarge  their 
respective  powers  at  the  expense  of  each  other,  and  which 
would  induce  each  to  watch  the  other  with  incessant  vigi- 
lance. Had  such  proved  to  be  the  fact,  I  readily  concede 
that  the  result  would  have  been  the  opposite  of  what  has 
occurred,  and  the  republican,  and  not  the  federal  party, 
would  have  been  mistaken  as  to  the  tendency  of  the  system. 
But  so  far  from  this  jealousy,  experience  has  shown  that,  in 
the  operation  of  the  system,  a  majority  of  the  States  have 
acted  in  concert  with  the  Government  at  all  times,  except 
upon  the  eve  of  political  revolution,  when  one  party  was 
about  to  go  out,  to  make  room  for  the  other  to  come  in  ;  and 
we  now  clearly  see  that  this  has  not  been  the  result  of  acci- 
dent, but  that  the  habitual  operation  must  necessarily  be  so. 
The  misconception  resulted  from  overlooking  the  fact,  that 
the  Government  is  but  an  agent  of  the  States,  and  that  the 
dominant  majority  of  the  Union,  which  elect  and  control  a 
majority  of  the  State  Legislatures,  would  elect  also  those 
who  would  control  this  Government ; — whether  that  majority 
rested  on  sectional  interests,  on  patronage  and  influence,  or  on 
whatever  other  basis,  and  that  they  would  use  the  influence 
both  of  the  General  and  State  Governments  jointly,  for  ag- 
grandizement and  the  perpetuation  of  their  power.  Kegarded 


566  SPEECHES. 

in  this  light,  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  the  tendency  of 
the  system  is  such  as  it  has  proved  itself  to  be, — and  which 
any  intelligent  observer  now  sees  must  necessarily  terminate 
in  a  central,  absolute,  irresponsible,  and  despotic  power.  It 
is  this  fatal  tendency  that  the  measure  proposed  in  the  bill 
is  calculated  to  counteract,  and  which,  I  believe,  would  prove 
effective  if  now  applied.  It  would  place  the  States  in  the 
relation  in  which  it  was  universally  believed  they  would  stand 
to  this  Government  at  the  time  of  its  formation  ;  and  make 
them  those  jealous  and  vigilant  guardians  of  its  action  on  all 
measures  touching  the  disbursements  and  expenditures  of 
the  Government,  which  it  was  confidently  believed  they 
would  be  ;  which  would  arrest  the  fatal  tendency  to  the  con- 
centration of  the  entire  powers  of  the  system  in  this  Govern- 
ment, if  any  thing  on  earth  can. 

But  it  is  objected  that  the  remedy  would  be  too  powerful, 
and  would  produce  an  opposite  and  equally  dangerous  ten- 
dency. I  coincide  that  such  would  be  the  danger,  if  per- 
manently applied  ;  and,  under  that  impression,  and  believ- 
ing that  the  present  excess  of  revenue  would  not  continue 
longer,  I  have  limited  the  measure  to  the  duration  of  the 
Compromise  Act.  Thus  limited,  it  will  act  sufficiently  long, 
I  trust,  to  eradicate  the  present  disease,  without  superin- 
ducing one  of  an  opposite  character. 

But  the  plan  proposed  is  supported  by  its  justice,  as  well 
as  these  high  considerations  of  political  expediency.  The 
surplus  money  in  the  treasury  is  not  ours.  It  properly  be- 
longs to  those  who  made  it,  and  from  whom  it  has  been  un- 
justly taken.  I  hold  it  an  unquestionable  principle,  that  the 
Government  has  no  right  to  take  a  cent  from  the  people  be- 
yond what  is  necessary  to  meet  its  legitimate  and  consti- 
tutional wants.  To  take  more  intentionally  would  be  rob- 
bery ;  and,  if  the  Government  has  not  incurred  the  guilt  in 
the  present  case,  its  exemption  can  only  be  found  in  its  folly 
— the  folly  of  not  seeing  and  guarding  against  a  vast  excess 


SPEECHES.  567 

of  revenue,  which,  the  most  ordinary  understanding  ought  to 
have  foreseen  and  prevented.  If  it  were  in  our  power — if  we 
could  ascertain  from  whom  the  vast  amount  now  in  the  trea- 
sury was  improperly  taken,  justice  would  demand  that  it 
should  be  returned  to  its  lawful  owners.  But,  as  that  is  im- 
possible, the  measure  next  best,  as  approaching  nearest  to 
restitution,  is  that  which  is  proposed,  to  deposit  it  in  the 
treasuries  of  the  several  States,  which  will  place  it  under  the 
disposition  of  the  immediate  representatives  of  the  people, 
to  be  used  by  them  as  they  may  think  fit,  till  the  wants  of 
the  Government  may  require  its  return. 

But  it  is  objected  that  such  a  disposition  would  be  a  bribe 
to  the  people.  A  bribe  to  the  people  to  return  it  to  those 
to  whom  it  justly  belongs,  and  from  whose  pockets  it 
should  never  have  been  taken  !  A  bribe  to  place  it  in  the 
charge  of  the  immediate  representatives  of  those  from  whom 
we  derive  our  authority,  and  who  may  employ  it  so 
much  more  usefully  than  we  can  !  But  what  is  to  be 
done  ?  If  not  returned  to  the  people,  it  must  go  some- 
where ;  and  is  there  no  danger  of  bribing  those  to  whom 
it  may  go  ?  If  we  disburse  it,  is  there  no  danger  of  brib- 
ing the  thousands  of  agents,  contractors,  and  jobbers, 
through  whose  hands  it  must  pass,  and  in  whose  pockets, 
and  those  of  their  associates,  so  large  a  part  would  be 
deposited  ?  If,  to  avoid  this,  we  leave  it  where  it  is,  in 
the  banks, — is  there  no  danger  of  bribing  the  banks  in  whose 
custody  it  is,  with  their  various  dependants,  and  the  nu- 
merous swarms  of  speculators  which  hover  about  them  in 
hopes  of  participating  in  the  spoil  ?  Is  there  no  danger  of 
bribing  the  political  managers,  who,  through  the  deposits, 
have  the  control  of  these  banks,  and,  by  them,  of  their  de- 
pendants, and  the  hungry  and  voracious  hosts  of  speculators 
who  have  overspread  and  are  devouring  the  land  ?  Yes,  lite- 
rally devouring  the  land.  Finally,  if  it  should  be  vested,  as 
proposed  by  the  Senator  from  New- York,  is  there  no  danger 


568  SPEECHES. 

of  bribing  the  holders  of  State  stocks,  and,  through  them, 
the  States  which  have  issued  them  ?  Are  the  agents,  the 
jobbers,  and  contractors  ;  are  the  directors  and  stockholders 
of  the  banks  ;  are  the  speculators  and  stock-jobbers  ;  are  the 
political  managers  and  holders  of  State  securities,  the  only 
honest  portion  of  the  community  ?  Are  they  alone  incapa- 
ble of  being  bribed  ?  And  are  the  people  the  least  honest, 
and  most  liable  to  be  bribed  ?  Is  this  the  creed  of  those 
now  in  power  ?  of  those  who  profess  to  be  the  friends  of  the 
people,  and  to  place  implicit  confidence  in  their  virtue  and 
patriotism  ? 

I  have  now,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  stated  what,  in  my  opin- 
ion, ought  to  be  done  with  the  surplus.  Another  question 
still  remains :  not  what  shall,  but  what  will  be  done  with 
the  surplus  ?  With  a  few  remarks  on  this  question,  I  shall 
conclude  what  I  intended  to  say. 

There  was  a  time,  in  the  better  days  of  the  republic, 
hen  to  show  what  ought  to  be  done  was  to  insure  the 
adoption  of  the  measure.  Those  days  have  passed  away,  I 
fear,  for  ever.  A  power  has  risen  up  in  the  Government 
greater  than  the  people  themselves,  consisting  of  many,  and 
various,  and  powerful  interests,  combined  into  one  mass,  and 
held  together  by  the  cohesive  power  of  the  vast  surplus  in 
the  banks.  This  mighty  combination  will  be  opposed  to 
any  change  ;  and  it  is  to  be  feared  that,  such  is  its  influ- 
ence, no  measure  to  which  it  is  opposed  can  become  a  law, 
however  expedient  and  necessary ;  and  that  the  public  money 
will  remain  in  their  possession,  to  be  disposed  of,  not  as  the 
public  interest,  but  as  theirs  may  dictate.  The  time,  indeed, 
seems  fast  approaching,  when  no  law  can  pass,  nor  any  honor 
be  conferred,  from  the  Chief  Magistrate  to  the  tide-waiter, 
without  the  assent  of  this  powerful  and  interested  combina- 
tion, which  is  steadily  becoming  the  Government  itself,  to 
the  utter  subversion  of  the  authority  of  the  people.  Nay, 
I  fear  we  are  in  the  midst  of  it  ;  and  I  look  with  anxiety 


SPEECHES.  569 

to  the  fate  of  this  measure  as  the  test  whether  we  are  or 
not.  ^ 

If  nothing  should  be  done — if  the  money  which  justly 
belongs  to  the  people  be  left  where  it  is,  with  the  many 
and  overwhelming  objections  to  it — the  fact  will  prove  that 
a  great  and  radical  change  has  been  effected  ;  that  the  Gov- 
ernment is  subverted  ;  that  the  authority  of  the  people  i 
suppressed  by  an  union  of  the  banks  and  the  Executive — a 
union  a  hundred  times  more  dangerous  than  that  of  churc 
and  state,  against  which  the  constitution  has  so  jealousl 
guarded.      It  would   be  the  announcement  of  a  state  of 
things  from  which,  it  is  to  be  feared,  there  can  be  no  recovery 
— a  state  of  boundless  corruption,  and  the  lowest  and  basest 
subserviency.     It  seems  to  be  the  order  of  Providence  that, 
with   the   exception  of  these,  a  people  may  recover  from 
any  evil.     Piracy,  robbery,  and  violence  of  every  descrip- 
tion may,  as  history  proves,  be  followed  by  virtue,  patriot- 
ism, and  national  greatness  ;  but  where  is  the  example  to  be 
found  of  a  degenerate,  corrupt  and  subservient  people,  who 
have  ever  recovered  their  virtue  and  patriotism  ?      Their 
lot   has   ever  been  the  lowest    state  of  wretchedness  and 
misery  :  scorned,  trodden  down,  and  obliterated  for  ever  from/ 
the  list  of  nations.      May  Heaven  grant  that  such  ma; 
never  be  our  doom  ! 


SPEECH 

On  the  Deposit  Bill,  delivered  in  the  Senate,  Decem- 
ber 21,  1836. 

[ME.  CALHOUN,  agreeably  to  notice,  asked  and  obtained  leave  to 
introduce  the  following  Bill : — 

A  Bill  to  extend  the  provisions  of  certain  sections  therein  named 


570  SPEECHES. 

of  the  act  of  the  23d  June,  1836,  regulating  the  deposits  of  the  money 
that  may  be  in  the  treasury  on  the  1st  January,  1838. 

Be  it  enacted,  &c.  That  the  money  which  shall  be  in  the  treasury 
of  the  United  States  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1838,  reserving  the 
sum  of  five  millions  of  dollars,  shall  be  deposited  with  the  several 
States,  on  the  terms,  and  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  13th, 
14th,  and  15th  sections  of  the  act  to  regulate  the  deposits  of  the 
public  money,  approved  the  23d  day  of  June,  1836.] 

ME.  CALHOUN,  in  introducing  the  bill,  observed  that  he 
had  not  asked  leave  to  introduce  this  bill  without  satisfying 
himself  that  there  would  be  a  large  surplus  of  the  public 
revenue  remaining  in  the  treasury  at  the  termination  of  the 
next  year,  after  allowing  for  very  liberal  appropriations  on 
all  proper  subjects  of  expenditure.  From  the  calculations 
he  had  made,  he  was  convinced  that  the  amount  of  this  sur- 
plus would  not  fall  short  of  eight  millions  of  dollars. 

He  was  fully  aware  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in 
the  report  submitted  by  that  officer  to  Congress,  had  taken 
a  very  different  view  ;  yet  Mr.  C.  thought  he  hazarded  little 
when  he  said  that,  on  this  subject  the  Secretary  was  cer- 
tainly mistaken.  He  knew,  indeed,  that  formerly  such  an 
assertion  from  a  member  of  Congress,  in  relation  to  the 
highest  fiscal  officer  of  the  Government  would  have  been 
deemed  adventurous  ;  but  so  vague,  so  uncertain,  so  con- 
jectural, and  so  very  erroneous  had  been  the  reports  from  that 
department  for  two  or  three  years  last  past,  that  he  could 
not  be  considered  as  risking  much  in  taking  such  a  position. 
That,  in  this  remark,  he  did  no  injustice  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  (toward  whom  he  cherished  no  personal  hos- 
tility or  unkind  feelings  whatsoever),  he  would  take  the  liberty 
of  presenting  to  the  Senate  the  estimates  made  by  that 
officer  in  December  last,  for  the  present  year,  and  compare 
with  it  the  actual  result,  as  now  ascertained  from  the  Sec- 
retary's own  report,  made  the  present  session.  His  esti- 
mate of  the  receipts  from  all  sources,  including  the  public 


SPEECHES.  571 

lands  and  every  other  branch  of  the  revenue,  amounted  to 
$19,750,000  ; — whereas  the  report  stated  those  receipts  to 
have  amounted  to  $47,691,898 — presenting  a  difference  in 
the  estimate,  for  a  single  year,  of  $27,941,898.  Thus  the 
excess  of  the  actual  receipts  had  exceeded  the  estimate  by 
more  than  one-third  of  the  whole  amount  of  the  estimate. 
Each  of  the  great  branches  of  revenue,  the  customs  and  the 
public  lands,  exceeded  the  estimate  by  millions  of  dollars. 

Again  :  the  Secretary  had  estimated  the  balance  at  the 
end  of  the  year,  then  within  four  weeks  of  its  termination, 
at  $18,047,598  ; — whereas  the  report  showed  that  the  bal- 
ance actually  amounted  to  $26,749,803 — being  an  error  of 
$8,702,250  for  that  short  period.  How  these  errors  arose, 
whether  from  negligence  or  inattention,  or  whether  they 
were  made  purposely,  to  subserve  certain  political  views,  it 
was  not  for  him  to  say ;  but  they  were  sufficient  to  show 
that  he  ran  no  very  formidable  hazard  in  venturing  to  say 
that  the  views  of  the  Secretary  in  respect  to  what  was  yet 
future  might  be  erroneous. 

But  further :  the  Secretary,  in  his  report  last  year,  had 
estimated  the  available  means  of  the  treasury,  for  the  cur- 
rent year,  at  $37,797,598  ;  they  were  now  ascertained  to 
have  been  $74,441,701,  exhibiting  the  error  of  $46,644,104. 
We  might  search  the  fiscal  records  of  all  civilized  nations, 
and  would  not  find,  in  the  compass  of  history,  an  error  so 
monstrous.  He  stated  this  with  no  feelings  of  ill-will  to- 
ward the  Secretary,  but  with  emotions  of  shame  and  mortifi- 
cation for  the  honor  of  the  country.  How  must  errors  like 
these  appear  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  nations  ?  How  would 
they  look  to  posterity  ? 

But  he  was  not  yet  done.  The  Secretary  estimated  the  ex- 
penditure of  the  year  at  $23,103,444  ;— whereas  they  turned 
out  to  be  $31,435,032— making  a  difference  of  $8,331,588. 
He  estimated  the  balance  in  the  treasury  at  the  end  of  this 
year  at  $14,500,000.  He  now  admits  that  it  will  equal 


572  SPEECHES. 

$43,005,669— making  an  error  of  $28,505,669,  and  this  not- 
withstanding he  had  made  an  under  estimate  of  the  expendi- 
ture of  more  than  eight  millions,  which,  if  added,  as  it  ought 
to  be,  would  make  a  mistake  of  nearly  thirty-seven  millions. 

The  Secretary,  however,  had  profited  by  the  errors  of 
last  year.  The  estimates  in  the  present  report  were  some- 
what nearer  to  the  truth,  but  still  far  removed  from 
it.  Indeed,  so  small  was  the  extent  to  which  he  had 
profited,  that  he  had  risked  an  opinion  that  the  expenditure 
would  exceed  the  income ;  so  that,  of  the  sum  which  had 
been  deposited  with  the  States,  a  portion,  amounting  to  be- 
tween two  and  three  millions,  would  have  to  be  refunded. 
The  Secretary  held  out  language  of  this  kind,  when  he  acknow- 
ledges that  the  income  of  the  year  would  be  $24,000,000. 
Mr.  C.  said  he  would  be  glad  to  see  the  administration,  with 
such  an  income,  venture  to  call  upon  the  States  to  pay  back 
the  moneys  they  had  received.  No  administration  would 
venture  the  call,  except  in  the  case  of  a  foreign  war ;  in  which 
event  these  deposits  would  prove  a  timely  and  precious  re- 
source. With  proper  management,  they  would  enable  the 
Government  to  avoid  the  necessity,  at  the  commencement  of 
a  war,  of  resorting  to  war  taxes  and  loans.  All  those  gentle- 
men— and  he  saw  several  of  them  around  him  who  were  here 
at  the  commencement  of  the  last  war — would  well  remember 
the  difficulty  and  embarrassment  which  attended  the  op- 
eration of  raising  the  revenue  from  a  peace  to  a  war 
establishment. 

Assuming,  then,  that  there  would  be  a  surplus,  the  ques- 
tion presented  itself  as  to  what  should  be  done  with  it. 
That  question  Mr.  C.  would  not  now  attempt  to  argue. 
The  discussion  of  it  at  this  time  would  be  premature  and 
out  of  place.  He  proposed  to  himself  a  more  limited  object ; 
which  was,  to  state  the  points  connected  with  this  subject, 
which  he  considered  as  established,  and  to  point  out  what 
was  the  real  issue  at  present.  One  point  was  perfectly  es- 


SPEECHES.  573 

tablished  by  the  proceedings  of  the  last  session— that^hen 
there  was  an  unavoidable  surplus,  it  ought  not  to  bB  left  in 
the  treasury,  or  in  the  deposit  banks,  but  should  be  de- 
posited with  the  States.  It  was  not  only  the  most  safe,  but 
the  most  just,  that  the  States  should  have  the  use  of  the 
money,  in  preference  to  the  banks.  This,  in  fact,  was  the 
great  and  leading  principle  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of 
the  act  of  last  session — an  act  that  would  for  ever  distinguish 
the  twenty-fourth  Congress — an  act  which  will  go  down  with 
honor  to  posterity,  as  it  had  obtained  the  almost  unanimous 
approbation  of  the  present  day.  Its  passage  had  inspired 
the  country  with  new  hopes.  It  was  beheld  abroad  as  a 
matter  of  wonder ;  a  phenomenon  in  the  fiscal  world  ;  such 
as  could  have  sprung  out  of  no  institutions  but  ours,  and 
which  went,  in  a  powerful  and  impressive  manner,  to  illus- 
trate the  genius  of  our  Government./ 

Ale  considered  it  no  less  fullf  established,  that  there 
ought  to  be  no  surplus,  if  it  could  be  avoided.  The  money 
belonged  to  those  who  made  it,  and  Government  had  no  right 
to  exact  it  unless  necessary.  What,  then,  was  the  true 
question  at  issue  ?  It  was  this,  Can  you  reduce  the  reve- 
nue to  the  wants  of  the  people  ? — he  meant  in  a  large  politi- 
cal sense.  Could  the  reduction  be  made  without  an  injury 
that  would  more  than  countervail  the  benefit  ?  The  Presi- 
dent thought  it  could  be  done ;  and  Mr.  C.  hoped  he  was 
correct  in  that  opinion.  If  it  be  practicable,  then,  beyond 
all  question  it  was  the  proper  and  natural  course  to  be 
adopted.  It  was  under  this  impression  that  he  had  moved 
to  refer  this  part  of  the  President's  Message  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Finance.  He  not  only  considered  that  as  the 
appropriate  committee,  but  there  were  other  reasons  that 
governed  him  in  making  the  reference.  A  majority  of  that 
committee  were  known  to  be  hostile  to  the  Deposit  Bill,  and 
would,  therefore,  do  all  in  their  power  to  avoid  the  possibility 
of  having  a  surplus.  If,  then,  that  committee  could  not 


574  SPEECHES. 

effect  a  reduction,  then  it  might  be  safely  assumed  as  im- 
practicable. If  they  could  agree  on  a  reduction,  the  Senate 
no  doubt  would  concur  with  them. 

There  was  one  point  on  which  the  committee  need  have 
have  no  apprehension  :  that  any  reduction  they  might  pro- 
pose to  make  would  be  considered  by  the  South  as  a  breach 
of  the  Compromise  Act.  Her  interest  in  that  act  is  not 
against  the  reduction,  but  the  increase  of  duties.  If  it  be 
the  pleasure  of  other  sections  to  reduce,  she  will  certainly 
not  complain. 

Mr.  0.  said  he  would  take  this  occasion  to  define  with 
exactness  the  position  he  occupied  in  regard  to  the  compro- 
mise. He  stood,  personally,  without  pledge  or  plighted 
faith,  as  far  as  that  act  was  concerned.  He  clearly  foresaw, 
at  the  time  that  bill  passed,  that  there  would  be  a  surplus 
of  revenue  in  the  treasury.  He  knew  that  result  to  be  un- 
avoidable, unless  by  a  reduction  so  sudden  as  to  overthrow 
our  manufacturing  establishments — a  catastrophe  which  he 
sincerely  desired  to  avoid.  Whatever  might  be  thought  to 
the  contrary,  he  had  always  been  the  friend  of  those  estab- 
lishments. He  thought,  at  the  time,  that  the  reduction  pro- 
vided for  in  the  bill  had  not  been  made  to  take  place  as  fast 
as  it  might  have  been.  But  the  terms  of  the  bill  formed 
the  only  ground  on  which  the  opposing  interests  could  agree, 
and  he,  as  representing,  in  part,  one  of  the  Southern  States, 
had  accepted  it — believing  it,  on  the  whole,  to  be  the  best 
arrangement  which  could  be  effected  ;  yet  he  saw  (it  did  not, 
indeed,  require  much  of  a  prophetic  spirit)  that  there  were 
those  who  were  then  ready  to  collect  the  tariff  at  the  point 
of  the  bayonet  rather  than  yield  an  inch,  who,  when  the  in- 
jurious effects  of  the  surplus  should  be  felt,  would  throw  the 
responsibility  on  those  who  supported  the  bill.  Seeing  this, 
Mr.  G.  had  determined  that  it  should  not  be  thrown  upon 
him.  He  had  therefore  risen  in  his  place,  and,  after  calling 
on  the  stenographers  to  note  his  words,  he  had  declared  that 


SPEECHES.  575 

he  voted  for  that  bill  in  the  same  manner,  and  no  other, 
that  he  did  for  all  other  bills, — and  that  he  held  himself  no 
further  personally  pledged  in  its  passage  than  in  any  other. 
Mr.  C.  was  therefore  at  perfect  liberty  to  select  his  position, 
which  he  would  now  state.  We  of  the  South  had  derived 
incalculable  advantages  from  that  act ;  and,  as  one  belong- 
ing to  that  section,  he  claimed  all  those  advantages  to  the 
very  last  letter.  That  act  had  reduced  the  income  of  the 
Government  greatly.  Few,  he  believed,  were  fully  aware  of 
the  extent  to  which  it  had  operated.  It  was  a  fact,  which 
documents  would  show,  that  the  act  of  1828  arrested  at  the 
custom-house  one-half  in  value  of  the  amount  of  the  imports. 
The  imports  at  that  time,  deducting  reshipments,  were 
about  sixty-five  millions  of  dollars  in  value — out  of  which  the 
Government  collected  about  thirty-two  millions  in  the  gross, 
The  imports  of  the  last  year,  deducting  reshipmentg, 
amounted  to  $120,000,000,  which,  if  the  tariff  of  1828 
had  not  been  reduced,  would  have  given  an  increase  of 
$60,000,000,  instead  of  something  upwards  of  $21,000,000. 
He  claimed  not  the  whole  difference  for  the  compromise,  but 
upwards  of  $20,000,000  may  be  fairly  carried  to  its  credit. 
Under  this  great  reduction,  we  of  the  South  began  to  revive. 
Our  business  began  to  thrive  and  to  look  up.  But  the  Com- 
promise Act  had  not  yet  fully  discharged  its  functions.  Its 
operation  would  continue  until  the  revenue  shall  be  brought 
down  till  no  duty  shall  exceed  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
and  the  revenue  be  reduced  to  the  actual  wants  of  the 
Government.  But,  while  he  claimed  for  the  South  all  these 
very  important  advantages,  Mr.  C.  trusted  he  was  too  honest 
as  well  as  too  proud,  while  he  claimed  those  benefits  on  her 
part,  to  withhold  whatever  advantage  the  North  may  derive 
from  the  compromise.  His  position,  then,  on  the  question 
of  reduction,  was  to  follow,  and  not  to  lead  ;  and  such  he  be- 
lieved to  be  the  true  position  of  the  South.  If  it  be  the  wish 
of  other  sections  to  reduce,  she  will  cheerfully  follow  ;  but  I 


576  SPEECHES. 

trust  she  will  be  tlie  last  to  disturb  the  present  state  of 
things. 

Having  thus  clearly  denned  his  own  position,  Mr.  C. 
said  he  would  venture  a  suggestion.  If  the  manufacturing 
interests  would  listen  to  the  voice  of  one  who  had  never  been 
their  enemy,  he  would  venture  to  advise  them  to  a  course 
which  he  should  consider  as  wise  on  all  sides. 

It  is  well  known,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  the  Compromise  Act 
makes  a  very  great  and  sudden  reduction  in  the  years  1841 
and  1842.  He  doubted  the  wisdom  of  this  provision  at  the 
time  ;  but  those  who  represented  the  manufacturing  interest 
thought  it  was  safer  and  better  to  reduce  more  slowly  at 
first,  and  more  rapidly  at  the  end  of  the  term,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  possibility  of  a  shock  at  the  commencement.  He 
thought  experience  had  clearly  shown  that  there  could  be  no 
hazard  in  accelerating  the  rate  of  reduction  now,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  great  and  rapid  descent  of  1841  and  1842  ;  and  in 
this  view,  it  seemed  to  him  that  it  would  be  wise  to  distribute 
the  remaining  reduction  equally  on  the  six  remaining  years  of 
the  act.  It  was,  however,  but  a  suggestion. 

Mr.  C.  observed,  that  had  not  this  been  the  short  session 
of  Congress,  he  should  have  postponed  the  introduction  of 
the  present  bill,  and  awaited  the  action  of  the  Committee  on 
Finance.  But  it  was  possible  that  committee  might  find  it 
impracticable  to  reduce  the  revenue ;  and  as  there  were  but 
about  two  months  of  the  session  left,  if  something  were  not 
effected  in  the  mean  time,  a  large  surplus  might  be  left  in 
the  treasury,  or  rather  in  the  deposit  banks — left  there  to 
disturb  and  disorder  the  currency  of  the  country  ;  to  cherish 
and  foster  a  spirit  of  wild  and  boundless  speculation,  and 
be  wielded  for  electioneering  purposes.  A  standing  surplus 
in  the  deposit  banks  was  almost  universally  condemned. 
The  President  himself  had  denounced  it  in  his  message,  and 
Mr.  C.  heartily  agreed  with  him  in  every  word  he  had  said 
on  that  subject. 


SPEECHES.  577 

Before  sending  the  bill  to  the  Chair,  he  would  take  the 
liberty  of  expressing  his  hope  that  the  subject  would  be  dis- 
cussed in  the  same  spirit  of  moderation  that  had  characterized 
the  debates  upon  it  last  year.  It  was  a  noble  example,  and 
he  hoped  it  would  be  followed.  Let  the  subject  be  argued 
on  great  public  grounds,  and  let  all  party  spirit  be  sacrificed, 
on  this  great  question,  to  the  good  of  the  country.  Yet,  he 
would  say  to  the  friends  of  the  administration,  that  it  was 
not  from  any  fear,  on  party  ground,  that  he  uttered  this 
sentiment ;  for  he  believed  there  was  no  subject  which, 
in  the  hands  of  a  skilful  opposition,  would  be  more  fatal  to 
power. 

[The  bill  was,  by  consent,  read  twice ;  when  Mr.  Caihoun  moved 
that  it  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Monday  next.  He  saw  no 
necessity  for  its  commitment. 

Mr.  Clay  here  rose,  expressed  his  opposition  to  any  essential  modi- 
fication of  the  Compromise  Act,  and  urged  the  adoption  of  the 
proposition  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
among  the  States,  as  the  most  efficient  mode  of  getting  rid  of  the  sur- 
plus. He  was  followed  by  Mr.  Walker  of  Mississippi,  who  moved  to 
refer  the  bill  to  the  Committee  on  Finance ;  and,  during  his  remarks, 
charged  Mr.  Caihoun  with  the  design  of  raising  money  for  the  purpose 
of  distribution,  and  making  the  system  the  settled  policy  of  the 
country.] 

Mr.  Caihoun,  in  reply,  complained  of  having  been  entirely 
misstated  by  the  Senator  from  Mississippi.  He  had  not 
invoked  the  Senate  to  any  such  act,  nor  had  he  said  any 
thing  like  it.  But  he  had  said  that  no  administration  could 
honestly  plead  any  necessity  for  demanding  back  the  deposits 
from  the  States,  unless  in  the  contingency  of  a  foreign  war. 
So  far  from  having  expressed  a  desire  to  create  and  distribute 
a  surplus,  he  had,  on  the  contrary,  expressly  declared  that 
he  should  greatly  prefer  a  reduction  of  the  revenue,  if  it  could 
be  safely  effected ;  and  he  had  expressed  his  willingness  to 
send  the  bill  to  a  committee  opposed  to  his  own  views,  that, 
VOL.  n. — 37 


578  SPEECHES. 

if  possible,  this  might  be  effected.  Yet,  the  gentleman  ac- 
cused him  of  a  design  to  create  a  surplus. 

The  gentleman  had  again  said,  that  one  of  the  argu- 
ments urged  by  him  in  favor  of  the  Distribution  Bill  had 
been,  that  the  deposit  of  the  public  money  in  banks  was  a 
great  instrument  of  fraud  and  speculation.  This  was  a 
great  mistake.  He  had  said  no  such  thing.  The  President, 
however,  had  undertaken  to  legislate  on  the  subject,  and  had 
issued  an  order,  which  was  much  more  like  an  act  of  Con- 
gress than  an  executive  measure.  The  President  deemed 
the  evil  so  great,  and  the  remedy  so  specific,  that  he  had 
ventured  on  a  great  stretch  of  power  to  realize  the  object. 
Now,  after  what  the  President  had  said  on  this  subject,  any 
man  who  should  vote  to  leave  the  public  money  in  de- 
posit banks  stood  openly  convicted  of  being  in  favor  of  specu- 
lators. 

Mr.  C.  hoped  the  Senator  would  not  persist  in  his  motion 
to  refer  the  bill  to  a  committee  which  he  knew  to  be  utterly 
opposed  to  it.  Nothing  could  be  more  unparliamentary.  He 
hoped  the  gentleman  would  at  least  indulge  him  with  a 
special  committee. 

[Here,  after  some  remarks  from  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  favor  of  the 
motion  to  refer  the  bill  to  the  Committee  of  Finance,  Mr.  Walker 
again  rose  in  support  of  his  motion ;  and  alleged  that  Mr.  Calhoun, 
by  not  advocating  the  recommendation  of  the  President  in  regard  to  a 
reduction  of  duties,  was,  in  fact,  voting  to  create  a  surplus  for  distri- 
bution.] 

Mr.  Calhoun  rejoined  and  explained,  with  a  view  to  show 
that  the  case  of  which  the  gentleman  from  Mississippi 
complained  was  not  parallel  to  the  present,  and  still  in- 
sisted on  the  propriety  of  allowing  him  a  special  commit- 
tee. If,  however,  the  Senate  should  resolve  to  send  this 
bill  to  the  Committee  of  Finance,  he  should  not  be  at  a  loss 
to  understand  the  movement.  He  had  read  the  President's 


SPEECHES.  579 

Message  attentively.  It  was  an  extraordinary  document. 
He  read  with  no  less  care  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  ;  that,  too,  was  an  extraordinary  document.  The 
perusal  had  suggested  some  suspicions  to  his  mind;  and 
should  the  present  bill  be  sent  to  the  Finance  Committee, 
those  suspicions  would  be  fully  confirmed.  Such  a  measure 
would  go  far  to  convince  him  that  the  policy  of  the  adminis- 
tration was  agreed  upon,  and  that  it  would  be — to  make  a 
demonstration  on  a  reduction  of  the  revenue,  but,  in  fact,  to 
leave  the  revenue  in  the  deposit  banks.  The  end  of  this 
session  was  not  far  off,  and  that  would  tell  whether  he  was 
not  correct  in  his  opinion.  He  would  now,  in  his  turn,  ven- 
ture to  become  a  prophet ;  and  he  would  predict  that,  if  the 
present  motion  succeeded,  the  very  thing  which  the  Presi- 
dent in  his  Message  had  most  decidedly  condemned,  would 
be  the  thing  actually  realized.  Notwithstanding  the  Presi- 
dent's opposition  to  the  collecting  of  surplus  revenue,  and 
all  he  had  said  on  its  tendency  to  promote  speculation 
and  corrupt  the  public  morals,  that  was  the  thing  which 
would  be  done.  He  was  sorry  he  did  not  see  the  Senator 
from  New- York  (Mr.  Wright)  in  his  place.  On  that  gentle- 
man, peculiarly,  lies  the  obligation  to  provide  for  the  re- 
duction of  the  revenue.  Mr.  C.  well  knew  the  difficulty  of 
touching  this  subject.  He  had  himself  had  a  full  and  sound 
trial  of  that  operation.  He  knew  the  efforts  by  which  the 
existing  reduction  had  been  effected,  and  he  felt  very  sure 
that  the  Senator  from  New- York  could  not  be  sanguine  in 
the  expectation  of  effecting  a  reduction  to  any  great  amount. 
He  had  heard  much  said  in  private  on  that  subject,  and  he 
could  not  but  regret  that  the  President,  when  alluding  to 
it  in  his  Message,  had  not  referred  to  the  difficulties  attend- 
ing it.  Mr.  C.  thought  he  saw  how  things  were  to  go,  and 
he  thus  openly  announced  what  his  conviction  was.  He 
believed  nothing  would  be  done  to  reduce  the  revenue  ;  that 
the  money  would  still  be  collected,  and  would  be  left,  not 


580  SPEECHES. 

where  it  ought  to  be  found,  in  the  treasuries  of  the  States, 
but  in  the  deposit  banks. 

If  the  Finance  Committee  would  report  an  adequate  re- 
duction, of  the  revenue,  Mr.  C.  would  consent  to  withdraw 
his  bill.  He  should  infinitely  prefer  a  reduction  to  a  distri- 
bution provided  the  thing  could  be  done.  In  the  mean- 
while the  South  claimed  the  execution  of  the  Compromise 
Bill ;  it  had  not  only  closed  a  long  and  painful  controversy, 
but  had  enabled  them  to  make  some  feeble  stand  against  the 
progress  of  executive  influence.  He  concluded  by  moving 
for  a  special  committee. 

[Here  Mr.  Rives  of  Virginia  said  something  in  support  of  the 
motion  of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi,  and  taxed  Mr.  C.  with  incon- 
sistency in  voting  to  refer  the  question  of  reduction  to  the  Committee 
on  Finance,  while  he  opposed  the  present  motion.] 

Mr.  Calhoun  repelled  the  charge  of  inconsistency.  He 
had  been  in  favor  of  sending  the  subject  of  a  reduction  of  the 
revenue  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  because  he  considered 
the  subject  as  appropriate  to  their  specific  duties ;  but  he 
was  opposed  to  sending  this  bill  to  that  committee,  because 
they  were  known  to  be  adverse  to  its  object.  In  one  case  he 
had  gone  on  the  great  parliamentary  principle,  that  proposi- 
tions were  to  be  referred  to  committees  favorable  to  the  ob- 
ject proposed  ;  and  in  the  other  case,  he  still  had  sent  it  to 
a  committee  at  least  not  unfavorable  to  the  measure.  He 
was  rejoiced  to  hear  the  honorable  Senator  from  Virginia  de- 
clare so  explicitly  that  he  did  not  repent  the  course  he  had 
taken  in  reference  to  the  Compromise  Bill.  He  was  confident 
the  gentleman  never  would  have  reason  to  repent  the  able 
and  honorable  course  he  had  pursued  on  that  memorable 
occasion;  and  he  trusted  the  gentleman  would  agree  in 
sentiment  with  those  who  were  opposed  to  leaving  the  public 
money  in  the  deposit  banks.  Mr.  C.  had  given  many  evi- 
dences of  his  desire  that  a  reduction  should  be  made  in  the 


581 

revenue  ;  and  had,  the  last  session,  sent  a  bill  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures  for  that  object,  which  afterwards  had 
passed  the  Senate  almost  unanimously,  and  had  been  sent  to 
the  other  House,  after  which,  it  was  never  again  heard  of. 
He  was  not  the  man,  however,  to  disturb  the  terms  of  the 
compromise,  which  had  so  happily  been  effected,  unless  it 
could  be  done  by  common  consent.  The  South  were  pre- 
pared to  assent  to  such  a  step,  and  if  the  North  would  also 
agree  to  it,  there  need  be  no  difficulty  in  the  case.  The 
gentleman  from  Virginia  seemed  to  suppose  that,  because  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  Finance  Committee  to  consider  the  ques- 
tion, whether  there  was  likely  to  be  a  surplus  revenue  or  not, 
therefore,  this  bill  ought  to  be  sent  to  them.  The  argu- 
ment was  too  wide  ;— on  the  same  principle,  every  proposition 
which  related  to  the  application  of  any  portion  of  the  public 
resources  must  be  sent  to  that  committee.  It  would  swal- 
low up  almost  all  the  business  of  the  Senate.  He  concluded 
by  demanding  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  question  of  com- 
mitment. 


EEMABKS 

On  Mr.  Benton's  proposition  to  apply  the  unexpended 
balances  of  Appropriations  in  the  Treasury  to 
objects  of  National  Defence ;  made  in  the  Senate, 
December  28th,  1836. 

[MR.  BENTON,  after  stating  the  contents  of  the  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  (called  for  on  his  motion),  showing  the  amount 
of  unexpended  balances  of  appropriations  made  at  the  last  session, 
and  commenting,  at  some  length,  on  them,  moved  the  printing  of  the 
document,  and  that  five  copies  be  sent  to  the  Governor  of  each  State, 
ten  copies  to  each  branch  of  the  State  Legislatures,  and  one  thousand 
copies  retained  for  the  use  of  the  Senate. 


582  SPEECHES. 

The  main  objects  of  the -movement  being  to  retain  these  balances 
in  the  treasury,  and  to  withdraw  from  the  States  the  surplus  revenues 
which  had  been  deposited  with  them,  under  an  act  of  the  previous 
session,  Mr.  Calhoun  rose  and  said :] 

HE  desired  to  make  a  very  few  remarks  on  the  very  ex- 
traordinary motion  of  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  and  to  ask 
for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  question.  The  sending  out 
this  paper  in  the  manner  proposed,  would  make  an  erroneous 
impression  on  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  it  would  be  sent, 
and  would  be  an  unusual  departure  from  the  ordinary  prac- 
tice of  the  Senate.  Did  not  every  Senator  know  that  there 
was  a  large  amount  left  in  the  treasury,  say  five  millions  of 
dollars,  by  the  Deposit  Law  of  the  last  session,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  meeting  these  balances  ?  Did  not  every  Senator 
know  that,  by  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
there  were  three  millions  of  dollars  of  these  appropriations 
that  would  not  be  wanted,  and  were  therefore  transferred  to 
the  surplus  fund  in  pursuance  of  a  standing  law  ?  And  was 
there  not  besides,  a  large  sum  in  the  hands  of  the  disbursing 
officers  of  the  Government  ?  He  knew,  Mr.  C.  said,  that 
every  exertion  would  be  made  in  order  to  defeat  the  Deposit 
Bill  at  this  session.  He  knew  well  that  the  battle  was  yet 
to  be  fought — a  battle  in  which  the  people  would  be  on  one 
side,  and  the  office-holders  and  office-seekers  on  the  other. 
While  up,  he  would  refer  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  and 
make  one  remark  in  reference  to  the  report  of  that  committee 
on  the  bill  introduced  by  him  a  few  days  since,  and,  much 
against  his  wishes,  referred  to  them.  They  had  reported 
against  the  bill,  and  it  was  not  strange  that  they  should  do 
so  ;  because  a  majority  of  that  committee  were  three  out  of 
the  six  who  voted  against  the  Deposit  Bill  at  the  last  session. 
But  what  he  complained  of  was,  that  they  had  reported  it 
without  one  single  word  of  explanation ;  the  chairman  simply 
saying  that  he  was  instructed  by  the  committee  to  move  for 
its  indefinite  postponement.  He  would  now  ask  the  chair- 


SPEECHES.  583 

man  on  what  grounds  he  had  reported  against  this  bill? 
Was  it  because  the  committee  were  satisfied  that  there 
would  not  be  a  surplus  ?  If  so,  said  Mr.  C.,  let  us  know  it. 
I  shall  be  glad  to  hear  that  such  was  their  reason,  because  it 
is  a  debatable  proposition.  Was  it  because  they  would  not 
have  the  surplus  deposited  with  the  States  ?  If  this  was 
the  case,  it  was  directly  contrary  to  the  known  sense  of  that 
body,  expressed  almost  unanimously  at  the  last  session.  He 
could  scarcely  believe  that  the  committee  reported  against 
the  bill  on  such  grounds.  With  the  denunciations  of  the 
President  himself  against  the  corrupting  influence  of  a  large 
surplus  in  the  treasury,  and  his  declarations  that  the  worst 
disposition  that  could  be  made  of  it  was  to  let  it  remain  in 
the  deposit  banks,  he  did  suppose  that  the  committee  could 
not  contemplate  either  result.  He  could  not  believe  but 
that,  from  courtesy,  the  chairman  would  make  such  a  report 
as  would  put  the  Senate  in  possession  of  the  grounds  on 
which  the  committee  objected  to  the  bill. 

[Here  Mr.  Wright  rose,  and,  in  a  few  remarks,  objected  to  the  in- 
quiry, and  declined  making  any  direct  response.  He  further  stated, 
that  the  committee  did  not  design  to  submit  any  detailed  report,  but 
that,  when  the  bill  of  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  (to  extend  the 
provisions  of  the  Deposit  Act  to  the  surplus  revenues  remaining  in  the 
treasury  on  the  1st  of  January,  1838)  came  up  for  consideration,  he 
should  feel  bound  to  assign  the  reasons  which  governed  the  committee 
in  the  course  they  had  adopted.] 

Mr.  Calhoun,  in  reply,  said,  that,  although  he  very 
much  regretted  that  they  were  not  to  have  a  detailed  report, 
yet  he  must  be  permitted  to  say  that  he  thought  the  course 
of  the  committee  a  very  unusual  one.  A  bill  of  acknowledg- 
ed importance,  if  he  might  judge  from  the  President's  Mes- 
sage and  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  together 
with  the  course  of  the  Senate  last  session,  was,  after  a  full 
debate,  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  because  that 


584  SPEECHES. 

committee  was  particularly  constituted  to  advise  on  the 
subjects  to  which  it  related  ;  yet  that  committee  treated  it 
as  one  of  the  most  insignificant  questions,  and  despatched  it 
without  a  written  report.  This  all  might  be  very  right,  but 
it  certainly  was  very  extraordinary  and  unusual. 

He  had  been  here  many  years,  both  as  presiding  officer 
and  as  a  member  of  the  body,  and  he  must  say,  that  this 
was  the  first  time  he  had  ever  known  a  question  to  be  put 
to  the  chairman  of  a  committee  which  he  refused  to  answer. 
As  a  representative  of  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  he 
must  say  that  he  had  a  right  to  an  answer.  The  bill  had 
gone  to  the  committee,  had  received  its  disapprobation,  and 
the  committee  ought  to  let  them  know  the  grounds  on  which 
they  objected  to  it.  If  there  was  no  surplus,  let  us,  said 
Mr.  C.,  hear  the  committee  say  so.  If  there  was  one,  then, 
said  he,  let  us  hear  what  objections  the  committee  have  to 
depositing  it  with  the  States.  He  made  no  complaints ;  but 
he  must  say  the  course  of  the  committee  was  very  extraordi- 
nary. 

[Mr.  Hubbard  of  New  Hampshire  here  made  some  remarks  in 
opposition  to  the  course  adopted  by  the  committee,  and  to  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Benton,  as  calculated,  if  not  designed,  to  mislead  the  State 
Legislatures  and  the  people. 

Mr.  Benton  replied  at  some  length  in  defence  of  the  report,  and 
his  own  course,  when  Mr.  Calhoun  again  rose  and  remarked :] 

That  he  found  the  information,  which  the  gentleman  from 
Missouri  was  so  anxious  to  give  the  country,  was  already 
before  the  Senate  in  a  very  authentic  form.  It  was  to  be 
found  in  the  table  of  estimates  accompanying  the  report  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  He  argued  that,  according 
to  the  assertion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who 
estimated  the  unexpended  balances  of  appropriations  at 
$14,636,063,  the  sum  of  $3,013,389  would  not  be  wanted. 
The  Senator,  therefore,  in  sending  out  a  document,  setting 


SPEECHES.  585 

forth  that  $14,500,000  were  required  for  outstanding  appro- 
priations, would  mislead  the  public,  and  make  a  false  impres- 
sion. Mr.  C.  contended  that,  taking  the  five  millions  which 
must  be  left  in  the  treasury,  on  account  of  the  Deposit  Act, 
from  the  eleven  and  odd  remaining  of  the  fourteen  millions, 
together  with  the  money  at  present  in  the  hands  of  the  dis- 
bursing officers,  there  would  be  funds  enough  on  hand,  within 
a  small  amount,  to  meet  the  outstanding  appropriations. 
Now,  when  it  was  admitted  by  every  one  that  the  surplus 
which  would  be  on  hand  at  the  end  of  the  next  year  would 
amount  to  at  least  twenty-five  millions  of  dollars  (and,  for 
himself,  he  entertained  no  doubt  that  it  would  be  thirty, 
unless  the  country  should  be  disturbed  by  a  war  or  some 
other  unforeseen  catastrophe),  he  would  seriously  ask,  was 
there  a  Senator  on  the  floor,  of  any  party,  who  would  say, 
in  a  time  of  profound  peace  (for  he  would  not  call  the 
Seminole  war  interrupting  the  peace  of  the  Union),  and 
recollecting  the  fact  that  this  administration  came  in  as  a 
reform  administration,  that  a  tax  should  be  raised,  or  that 
the  money  distributed  under  the  Deposit  Bill  should  be  re- 
funded, in  order  to  make  extravagant  appropriations  ?  He 
(Mr.  Calhoun)  could  not  believe  it.  He  knew  that  attempts 
would  be  made  to  prevent  the  renewal  of  the  Deposit  Act, 
though  he  could  not  say  that  this  was  one  of  them.  But  let 
him  tell  gentlemen  that  these  attempts  would  only  produce 
a  reaction,  and  end  in  their  defeat. 

Mr.  C.,  in  conclusion,  adverted  to  the  subject  of  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  revenue,  and  the  necessity  of  bringing  it  down  to 
the  legitimate  wants  of  the  Government.  He  insisted  that 
the  Committee  on  Finance,  to  whom  was  referred  the  con- 
sideration of  this  matter,  were  bound  to  show,  in  a  satisfac- 
tory manner,  either  that  there  would  be  a  surplus  next  year, 
or  to  admit  the  necessity  of  making  an  adequate  reduction 
of  the  revenue. 


586  SPEECHES. 

[Mr.  Benton  here  again  rose,  and  spoke  at  some  length.] 

Mr.  Calhoun,  in  reply,  said  :  He  had  certainly  made  no 
complaint  of  inaccuracy  on  the  part  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  He  presumed  that  his  calculations  were  perfectly 
accurate  ;  but  what  he  complained  of  was,  that  the  Senator 
from  Missouri  proposed  to  send  out  a  document  which  was 
not  correct,  with  a  view  to  show  the  outstanding  appropria- 
tions remaining  unsatisfied.  He  maintained  that  the  docu- 
ment was  entirely  pernicious  ;  for  it  set  forth  what  was  not 
really  the  truth  of  the  case,  and  all  that  he  desired  was  that 
the  public  should  not  be  deceived  on  the  subject. 


SPEECH 

On  the  bill  for  the  Admission  of  Michigan,  delivered 
in  the  Senate,  Jan'y  2,  1837. 

[MR.  GKUNDY  moved  that  the  previous  orders  of  the  day  he  post- 
poned, for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  Bill  to  admit  the  State  of 
Michigan  into  the  Union. 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  opposed  to  the  motioto ;  the  documents  accom- 
panying the  Bill  had  but  this  morning  been  laid  upon  the  table,  and 
no  time  had  been  allowed  for  even  reading  them  over. 

Mr.  Grundy  insisted  on  his  motion.  Of  one  point  he  was  fully  sat- 
isfied, that  Michigan  had  a  right  to  be  received  into  the  Union ;  on  this, 
he  presumed,  there  would  be  but  little  difference  of  opinion,  the  chief 
difficulty  having  respect  to  the  mode  in  which  it  was  to  be  done.  There 
seemed  more  difference  of  opinion,  and  he  presumed  there  would  be 
more  debate,  touching  the  preamble  than  concerning  the  Bill  itself;  but 
he  could  not  consent  to  postpone  the  subject.  Congress  was  daily 
passing  laws,  the  effect  of  which  pressed  immediately  upon  the  people 
of  Michigan,  and  concerning  which  they  were  entitled  to  have  a  voice 
and  a  vote  upon  this  floor ;  and,  therefore,  the  Bill  for  their  admission 
ought  to  receive  the  immediate  action  of  the  Senate.  As  to  the  docu- 


SPEECHES.  587 

ments,  they  were  not  numerous.  The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina 
might  readily  run  his  eye  over  them,  and  he  would  perceive  that  the 
facts  of  the  case  were  easily  understood.  Indeed,  there  was  but  one  of 
any  consequence,  respecting  which  there  was  any  controversy.  When 
the  Senate  adjourned  on  Thursday,  many  Senators  had  been  prepared 
and  were  desirous  to  speak,  although  the  documents  were  not  then 
printed.  It  was  the  great  principles  involved  in  the  case  which  would 
form  the  subjects  of  discussion,  and  they  could  as  well  be  discussed 
now.  He  thought  the  Senate  had  better  proceed.  One  fact  in  the 
case  was  very  certain ;  there  had  been  more  votes  for  the  members  to 
the  last  convention  than  for  the  first.  How  many  more  was  a  matter 
of  little  comparative  consequence.  The  great  question  for  the  Senate 
to  consider  was  this :  What  is  the  will  of  Michigan  on  the  subject  of  en- 
tering the  Union  ? 

If  this  should  be  decided,  it  was  of  less  consequence  whether  the  Bill 
should  or  should  not  expressly  state  that  the  last  convention,  and  the 
assent  by  it  given,  formed  the  ground  of  the  admission  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Calhoun  here  inquired  whether  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
was  to  be  understood  as  being  now  ready  to  abandon  the  preamble  ? 
If  the  Judiciary  Committee  were  agreed  to  do  this,  he  thought  all  diffi- 
culty would  be  at  an  end. 

Mr.  Grundy  replied,  that,  as  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee 
he  had  no  authority  to  reply  to  the  inquiry,  but,  as  an  individual,  he 
considered  the  preamble  as  of  little  consequence,  and  he  should  vote  for 
the  Bill  whether  it  were  in  or  out.  Michigan  ought  undoubtedly  to  be 
admitted,  and  all  the  consequences  would  result,  whether  the  preamble 
were  retained  or  not.  He  had  received  no  authority  from  the  commit- 
tee to  consent  that  it  should  be  stricken  out.  For  himself  he  was  set- 
tled in  the  belief  that  Congress  possessed  full  power  to  prescribe  the 
boundaries  of  a  territory,  and  that  when  that  territory  passed  into  a 
State  the  right  remained  still  the  same.  Congress  had  already  estab- 
lished the  boundary  of  Ohio,  and  that  settled  the  question.  He  never 
had  perceived  the  necessity  of  inserting  in  the  Admission  Bill  the  sec- 
tion which  made  the  assent  of  Michigan  to  the  boundaries  fixed  for  her 
by  Congress  a  prerequisite  to  her  admission,  because  the  disputed 
boundary  line  was  fixed  by  another  bill ;  and  whether  the  preamble 
to  this  Bill  should  be  retained  or  not,  Michigan  could  not  pass  the  line, 
so  that  the  preamble  was  really  of  very  little  consequence. 


588  SPEECHES. 

Mr.  Calhoun  said  that,  in  inquiring  of  the  honorable  chairman 
whether  he  intended  to  abandon  the  preamble  of  the  Bill,  his  question 
had  had  respect  not  to  any  pledge  respecting  boundaries,  but  to  the  re- 
cognition of  the  second  convention  and  of  its  doings.  He  wanted  to 
know.whether  the  chairman  was  ready  to  abandon  that  principle.  He 
had  examined  the  subject  a  good  deal,  and  his  own  mind  was  fully 
made  up  that  Michigan  could  not  be  admitted  on  the  ground  of  that 
second  convention ;  but  the  Senate  might  set  aside  the  whole  of  what 
had  been  done,  and  receive  Michigan  as  she  stood  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  last  session. 

Mr.  Grundy  observed  that^  if  the  gentleman's  mind  was  fully  made 
up,  then  there  could  be  no  necessity  of  postponing  the  subject  The 
gentleman  has  fully  satisfied  himself,  and  now,  said  Mr.  G.,  let  us  see 
if  he  can  satisfy  us.  His  argument,  it  seems,  has  been  fully  matured, 
and  we  are  now  ready  to  listen  to  it.  Though  I  consider  that  there 
is  no  virtue  in  the  preamble,  and  that  the  effect  of  the  Bill  will  be  the 
same  whether  it  is  stricken  out  or  retained ;  yet  I  am  not  ready  to  say 
that  I  shall  vote  to  strike  it  out.  I  am  ready  to  hear  what  can  be  said 
both  for  and  against  it. 

The  question  was  now  put  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Grundy  to  post- 
pone the  previous  orders,  and  carried,  22  to  16.  So  the  orders  were 
postponed,  and  the  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  bill,  which  having 
been  again  read  at  the  Clerk's  table  as  follows : 

A  Sill  to  admit  the  State  of  Michigan  into  the  Union  upon  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States. 

Whereas,  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  the  fifteenth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six,  entitled  "An  act  to  establish  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  to  provide  for  the  admis- 
sion of  the  State  of  Michigan  into  the  Union,  upon  the  conditions  therein 
expressed,"  a  convention  of  delegates,  elected  by  the  people  of  the  said 
State  of  Michigan,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  giving  their  consent  to  the 
boundaries  of  the  said  State  of  Michigan  as  described,  declared,  and  estab- 
lished, in  and  by  the  said  act,  did  on  the  fifteenth  of  December,  eighteen 
hundred  and  thirty-six,  assent  to  the  provisions  of  said  act :  therefore, 

Be  it  enacted,  &c.  That  the  State  of  Michigan  shall  be  one,  and  is 
hereby  declared  to  be  one,  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in 
all  respects  whatever. 


SPEECHES.  589 

SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Trea- 
sury, in  carrying  into  effect  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  sections  of 
the  twenty-third  of  June,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six,  entitled  "An 
act  to  regulate  the  deposits  of  the  public  money,"  shall  consider  the 
State  of  Michigan  as  being  one  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Calhoun  then  rose  and  addressed  the  Senate  as  follows :] 

I  HAVE  bestowed  on  this  subject  all  the  attention  that  was 
in  my  power,  and,  although  actuated  by  a  most  anxious  de- 
sire for  the  admission  of  Michigan  into  the  Union,  I  find  it 
impossible  to  give  my  assent  to  this  bill.  I  am  satisfied  the 
Judiciary  Committee  has  not  bestowed  upon  the  subject  all 
that  attention  which  its  magnitude  requires  ;  and  I  can  ex- 
plain, on  no  other  supposition,  why  they  should  place  the  ad- 
mission on  the  grounds  they  have.  One  of  the  committee, 
the  Senator  from  Ohio  on  my  left  (Mr.  Morris),  has  pro- 
nounced the  grounds  dangerous  and  revolutionary.  He 
might  have  gone  further,  and  with  truth  pronounced  them 
utterly  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  the  constitution. 

I  have  not  ventured  this  assertion,  as  strong  as  it  is,  with- 
out due  reflection,  and  weighing  the  full  force  of  the  terms  I 
have  used  ;  and  do  not  fear,  with  an  impartial  hearing,  to  es- 
tablish its  truth  beyond  the  power  of  controversy. 

To  understand  fully  the  objection  to  this  bill,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  we  should  have  a  correct  conception  of  the  facts. 
They  are  few,  and  may  be  briefly  told. 

Some  time  previous  to  the  last  session  of  Congress,  the 
Territory  of  Michigan,  through  its  Legislature,  authorized  the 
people  to  meet  in  convention,  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a 
State  Government.  -  They  met  accordingly,  and  agreed  up- 
on a  constitution,  which  they  forthwith  transmitted  to  Con- 
gress. It  was  fully  discussed  in  this  Chamber,  and,  objection- 
able as  the  instrument  was,  an  act  was  finally  passed,  which 
accepted  the  constitution,  and  declared  Michigan  to  be  a 
State,  and  admitted  into  the  Union,  on  the  single  condition, 


590  SPEECHES. 

that  she  should,  by  a  convention  of  the  people,  assent  to  the 
boundaries  prescribed  by  the  act.  Soon  after  our  adjourn- 
ment the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Michigan  (for  she  had 
been  raised  by  our  assent  to  the  dignity  of  a  State)  called 
a  convention  of  the  people  of  the  State,  in  conformity  to  the 
act — which  met  at  the  time  appointed,  at  Ann  Arbor.  After 
full  discussion,  the  convention  withheld  its  assent,  and  for- 
mally transmitted  the  result  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  This  is  the  first  part  of  the  story.  I  will  now  give 
the  sequel.  Since  then,  during  the  last  month,  a  self-con- 
stituted assembly  met, — professedly  as  a  convention  of  the 
people  of  the  State, — but  without  the  authority  of  the  State. 
This  unauthorized  and  lawless  assemblage  assumed  the  high 
function  of  giving  the  assent  of  the  State  of  Michigan  to  the 
condition  of  admission,  as  prescribed  in  the  act  of  Congress. 
They  communicated  their  assent  to  the  Executive  of  the 
United  States,  and  he  to  the  Senate.  The  Senate  referred 
his  message  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  that 
committee  reported  this  bill  for  the  admission  of  the  State. 

Such  are  the  facts  out  of  which  grows  the  important  ques- 
tion, Had  this  self-constituted  assembly  the  authority  to  as- 
sent for  the  State  ?  Had  they  the  authority  to  do  what  is 
implied  in  giving  assent  to  the  condition  of  admission  ?  That 
assent  introduces  the  State  into  the  Union,  and  pledges  it  in 
the  most  solemn  manner  to  the  constitutional  compact  which 
binds  these  States  in  one  confederated  body  ;  imposes  on  her 
all  its  obligations,  and  confers  on  her  all  its  benefits.  Had 
this  irregular,  self-constituted  assemblage  the  authority  to 
perform  these  high  and  solemn  acts  of  sovereignty  in  the  name 
of  the  State  of  Michigan  ?  She  could  only  come  in  as  a  State, 
and  none  could  act  or  speak  for  her  without  her  express  au- 
thority ;  and  to  assume  the  authority  without  her  sanction  is 
nothing  short  of  treason  against  the  State. 

Again  :  the  assent  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  Con- 
gress implies  an  authority  in  those  who  gave  it,  to  supersede 


SPEECHES.  59J 

in  part  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Michigan ;  for  her 
constitution  fixes  the  boundaries  of  the  State  as  part  of  that 
instrument  which  the  condition  of  admission  entirely  alters 
and  to  that  extent  the  assent  would  supersede  the  constitu- 
tion ;  and  thus  the  question  is  presented,  whether  this  self- 
constituted  assembly,  styling  itself  a  convention,  had  the 
authority  to  do  an  act  which  necessarily  implies  the  right  to 
supersede,  in  part,  the  constitution. 

But  further  :  the  State  of  Michigan,  through  its  legisla- 
ture, authorized  a  convention  of  the  people,  in  order  to  de- 
termine whether  the  condition  of  admission  should  be  assent- 
ed to  or  not.  The  convention  met  ;  and,  after  mature  de- 
liberation, it  dissented  from  the  condition  of  admission  ;  and 
thus  again  the  question  is  presented,  whether  this  self-called, 
self-constituted  assemblage,  this  caucus — for  it  is  entitled  to 
no  higher  name — had  the  authority  to  annul  the  dissent  of 
the  State,  solemnly  given  by  a  convention  of  the  people,  reg- 
ularly convoked  under  the  express  sanction  of  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  State  ? 

If  all  or  any  of  these  questions  be  answered  in  the  nega- 
tive— if  the  self-created  assemblage  of  December  had  no 
authority  to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  State  of  Michigan — 
if  none  to  supersede  any  portion  of  her  constitution — if  none 
to  annul  her  dissent  to  the  condition  of  admission  regularly 
given  by  a  convention  of  the  people  of  the  State,  convoked 
by  the  authority  of  the  State — to  introduce  her  on  its  au- 
thority would  be,  not  only  revolutionary  and  dangerous,  but 
utterly  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  our  constitution.  The 
question  then  submitted  to  the  Senate  is,  Had  that  assem- 
blage the  authority  to  perform  these  high  and  solemn  acts  ? 
The  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  holds 
that  this  self-constituted  assemblage  had  the  authority ;  and 
what  is  his  reason  ?  Why,  truly,  because  a  greater  number 
of  votes  were  given  for  those  who  constituted  that  assem- 
blage than  for  those  who  constituted  the  convention  of  the 


592  SPEECHES. 

people  of  the  State,  convened  under  its  constituted  author- 
ities. This  argument,  resolves  itself  into  two  questions — the 
first  of  fact,  and  the  second  of  principle.  I  shall  not  discuss 
the  first.  It  is  not  necessary  to  do  so.  But  if  it  were,  it  would 
be  easy  to  show  that  never  was  so  important  a  fact  so  loosely 
testified.  There  is  not  one  particle  of  official  evidence  "be- 
fore us.  We  had  nothing  but  the  private  letters  of  indi- 
viduals, who  do  not  know  even  the  numbers  that  voted  on 
either  occasion ;  they  know  nothing  of  the  qualification  of 
voters,  nor  how  their  votes  were  received,  nor  by  whom 
counted.  Now,  none  knows  better  than  the  honorable  chair- 
man himself,  that  such  testimony  as  is  submitted  to  us  to 
establish  a  fact  of  this  moment,  would  not  be  received  in  the 
lowest  magistrate's  court  in  the  land.  But  I  waive  this.  I 
come  to  the  question  of  the  principle  involved  ;  and  what  is 
it  ?  The  argument  is,  that  a  greater  number  of  persons 
voted  for  the  last  convention  than  for  the  first ;  and  therefore 
the  acts  of  the  last  of  right  abrogated  those  of  the  first ;  in 
Other  words,  that  mere  numbers,  without  regard  to  the  forms 
law,  or  the  principles  of  the  constitution,  give  authority. 
\e  authority  of  numbers,  according  to  this  argument,  sets 
aside  the  authority  of  the  law  and  the  constitution.  Need  I 
show  that  such  a  principle  goes  to  the  entire  overthrow  of 
our  constitutional  Government,  and  would  subvert  all  social 
order  ?  It  is  the  identical  principle  which  prompted  the  late 
revolutionary  and  anarchical  movement  in  Maryland,  and 
which  has  done  more  to  shake  confidence  in  our  system  of 
government  than  any  event  since  the  adoption  of  our  con- 
stitution,— but  which,  happily,  has  been  frowned  down  by 
the  patriotism  and  intelligence  of.  the  people  of  that  State. 

What  was  the  ground  of  this  insurrectionary  measure, 
but  that  the  government  of  Maryland  did  not  represent  the 
voice  of  the  numerical  majority  of  the  people  of  Maryland, 
and  that  the  authority  of  law  and  constitution  was  nothing 
.against  that  of  numbers ?  Here  we  find,  on  this  floor,  and 


593 

from  the  head  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  the  same  princi- 
ple revived,  and,  if  possible,  in  a  worse  form ;  for,  in  Mary- 
land, the  anarchists  assumed  that  they  were  sustained  by 
the  numerical  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  in  their 
revolutionary  movements  ;  but  the  utmost  the  chairman  can 
pretend  to  have  is  a  mere  plurality.  The  largest  number  of 
votes  claimed  for  this  self-created  assemblage  is  8,000  ;  and 
no  man  will  undertake  to  say  that  this  constitutes  any  thing 
like  a  majority  of  the  voters  of  Michigan :  and  he  claims 
the  high  authority  which  he  does  for  it,  not  because  it  is  a 
majority  of  the  people  of  Michigan,  but  because  it  is  a 
greater  number  than  voted  for  the  authorized  convention  of 
the  people  that  refused  to  agree  to  the  condition  of  admis- 
sion. It  may  be  shown  by  his  own  witness,  that  a  majority 
of  the  voters  of  Michigan  greatly  exceed  8,000.  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, the  president  of  the  self-created  assemblage,  states  that 
the  population  of  that  State  amounted  to  nearly  200,000 
persons.  If  so,  there  cannot  be  less  than  from  21,000  to 
30,000  voters,  considering  how  nearly  universal  the  right 
of  suffrage  is  under  its  constitution ;  and  it  thus  appears 
that  this  irregular,  self-constituted  meeting,  did  not  represent 
the  vote  of  one-third  of  the  State  :  and  yet,  on  a  mere  prin- 
ciple of  plurality,  we  are  to  supersede  the  constitution  of 
Michigan,  and  annul  the  act  of  a  convention  of  the  people 
regularly  convened  under  the  authority  of  the  government 
of  the  State. 

But,  says  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Bucha- 
nan), this  assembly  was  not  self-constituted.  It  met  under 
the  authority  of  an  act  of  Congress  ;  and  that  act  had  no  refer- 
ence to  the  State,  but  only  to  the  people  ;  and  that  the  assem- 
blage in  December  was  just  such  a  meeting  as  that  act  contem- 
plated. It  is  not  my  intention  to  discuss  the  question,  whether 
the  honorable  Senator  has  given  a  plausible  interpretation  to 
the  act ;  but,  if  he  has,  I  could  very  easily  show  his  interpreta- 
tion to  be  erroneous  ;  for,  if  such  had  been  the  intention  of 
VOL.  ii. — 38 


594  SPEECHES. 

Congress,  the  act  surely  would  have  specified  the  time  when 
the  convention  was  to  be  held — who  were  to  be  the  managers 
— who  the  voters — and  would  not  have  left  it  to  individuals, 
who  might  choose  to  assume  the  authority  to  determine  all 
these  important  points.  I  might  also  readily  show  that  the 
word  "  convention  "  of  the  people,  as  used  in  law  or  the  consti- 
tution, always  means  a  meeting  of  the  people  regularly  conven- 
ed by  the  constituted  authority  of  the  States,  in  their  high  sov- 
ereign capacity,  and  never  such  an  assemblage  as  the  one  in 
question.  But  I  waive  this  ;  I  take  higher  ground.  If  the 
act  be,  indeed,  such  as  the  Senator  says  it  is,  then  I  main- 
tain that  it  is  utterly  opposed  to  the  fundamental  principles 
of  our  Federal  Union.  Congress  has  no  right  whatever  to 
call  a  convention  in  a  State.  It  can  call  but  one  convention, 
and  that  is  a  convention  of  the  United  States  to  amend  the 
federal  constitution  ;  nor  can  it  call  that,  except  authorized 
by/two-thirds  of  the  States. 

•/  Ours  is  a  Federal  Republic — a  union  of  States.  Michi- 
gan is  a  State, — a  State  in  the  course  of  admission, — and  dif- 
fering only  from  the  other  States  in  her  federal  relations. 
She  is  declared  to  be  a  State  in  the  most  solemn  manner  by 
your  own  act.  She  can  come  into  the  Union  only  as  a  State  ; 
and  by  her  voluntary  assent,  given  by  the  people  of  the  State 
in  convention,  called  by  the  constituted  authorities  of  the 
State.  To  admit  the  State  of  Michigan  on  the  authority 
of  a  self-created  meeting,  or  one  called  by  the  direct  author- 
ity of  Congress,  passing  by  the  authorities  of  the  State, 
would  be  the  most  monstrous  proceeding  under  our  constitu- 
tion that  can  be  conceived  ;  the  most  repugnant  to  its  prin- 
ciples, and  dangerous  in  its  consequences.  It  would  establish 
a  direct  relation  between  the  individual  citizens  of  a  State 
and  the  General  Government,  in  utter  subversion  of  the  fed- 
eral character  of  our  system.  The  relation  of  their  citizens 
to  this  Government,  is  through  the  States  exclusively.  They 
are  subject  to  its  authority  and  laws  only  because  the  State 


SPEECHES.  595 

has  assented  to  it.  If  she  dissents,  their  assent  is  nothing  ; 
on  the  other  hand,  if  she  assents,  their  dissent  is  nothing. 
It  is  through  the  State,  then,  and  through  the  State  alone, 
that  the  United  States  Government  can  have  any  connection 
with  the  people  of  a  State  ;  and  does  not,  then,  the  Senator 
from  Pennsylvania  see,  that  if  Congress  can  authorize  a  con- 
vention of  the  people  in  the  State  of  Michigan,  without  the 
authority  of  the  State — it  matters  not  what  is  the  object — 
it  may  in  like  manner  authorize  conventions  in  any  other 
State  for  whatever  purpose  it  may  think  proper. 

Michigan  is  as  much  a  sovereign  State  as  any  other — dif- 
fering only,  as  I  have  said,  as  to  her  federal  relations.  If  we 
give  our  sanction  to  the  assemblage  of  December,  on  the 
principle  laid  down  by  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  then 
we  establish  the  doctrine  that  Congress  has  power  to  call,  at 
pleasure,  conventions  within  the  States.  Is  there  a  Senator 
on  this  floor  who  will  assent  to  such  a  doctrine  ?  Is  there 
one  especially,  who  represents  the  smaller  States  of  this 
Union,  or  the  weaker  section  ?  Admit  the  power,  and  every 
vestige  of  State  Eights  would  be  destroyed.  Our  system 
would  be  subverted ;  and  instead  of  a  confederacy  of  free 
and  sovereign  States,  we  would  have  all  power  concentrated 
here,  and  this  would  become  the  most  odious  despotism.  He, 
indeed,  must  be  blind,  who  does  not  see  that  such  a  power 
would  give  the  Federal  Government  a  complete  control  of  all 
the  States.  I  call  upon  Senators  now  to  arrest  a  doctrine  so 
dangerous.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that,  under  our  system, 
bad  precedents  live  for  ever ;  good  ones  only  perish.  We 
may  not  feel  all  the  evil  consequences  at  once,  but  this  pre- 
cedent, once  set,  will  surely  be  revived,  and  will  become  the 
instrument  of  infinite  eviL/ 

It  will  be  asked,  wh**i shall  be  done  ?  Will  you  refuse 
to  admit  Michigan  into  the  Union  ?  I  answer,  no  :  I  desire 
to  admit  her ;  and  if  the  Senators  from  Indiana  and  Ohio 
will  agree,  am  ready  to  admit  her  as  she  stood  at  the  begin- 


596  SPEECHES. 

ning  of  the  last  session,  without  giving  sanction  to  the  unau- 
thorized assemblage  of  December. 

But  if  this  does  not  meet  their  wishes,  there  is  still  an- 
other way,  by  which  she  may  be  admitted.  We  are  told 
two-thirds  of  the  legislature  and  people  of  Michigan  are  in 
favor  of  accepting  the  conditions  of  the  act  of  last  session. 
If  that  be  the  fact,  then  all  that  is  necessary  is,  that  the  leg- 
islature shall  call  another  convention.  All  difficulty  will 
thus  be  removed,  and  there  will  be  still  abundant  time  for 
her  admission  at  this  session.  And  shall  we,  for  the  sake  of 
gaming  a  few  months,  give  our  assent  to  a  bill  fraught  with 
principles  so  monstrous  as  this  ? 

We  have  been  told  that,  unless  she  is  admitted  imme- 
diately, it  will  be  too  late  for  her  to  receive  her  proportion  of 
the  surplus  revenue  under  the  Deposit  Bill.  I  trust  that,  on 
so  great  a  question,  a  difficulty  like  this  will  have  no  weight. 
Give  her  at  once  her  full  share.  I  am  ready  to  do  so  at  once, 
without  waiting  her  admission.  I  was  mortified  to  hear,  on 
so  grave  a  question,  such  motives  assigned  for  her  admission, 
contrary  to  the  law  and  the  constitution.  Such  considerations 
ought  not  to  be  presented  when  we  are  settling  great  consti- 
tutional principles.  I  trust  that  we  shall  pass  by  all  such 
frivolous  motives  on  this  occasion,  and  take  ground  on  the 
great  and  fundamental  principle  that  an  informal,  irregular, 
self-constituted  assembly — a  mere  caucus,  has  no  authority 
to  speak  for  a  sovereign  State  in  any  case  whatever  ;  to  su- 
persede its  constitution,  or  to  reverse  its  dissent  deliberately 
given  by  a  convention  of  the  people  of  the  State,  regularly 
convened  under  its  constituted  authorities. 


SPEECHES.  597 


SPEECH 

On  the  same  subject,  delivered  in  the  Senate,  Janu- 
ary 5,  1837. 

[MR.  GRUNDT,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  having 
moved  that  the  Bill  to  admit  the  State  of  Michigan  into  the  Union  be 
now  read  a  third  time — 

Mr.  Calhoun  addressed  the  Senate  in  opposition  to  the  Bill.] 

I  HAVE,  said  Mr.  C.,  been  connected  with  this  Govern- 
ment more  than  half  the  term  of  its  existence,  in  various 
capacities  ;  and  during  that  long  period  I  have  looked  on  its 
action  with  attention,  and  have  endeavored  to  make  myself 
acquainted  with  the  principles  and  character  of  our  political 
institutions, — and  I  can  truly  say  that,  within  that  time,foo 
measure  has  received  the  sanction  of  Congress  which  has  ap- 
peared to  me  more  unconstitutional  and  dangerous  than  the 
present.  It  assails  our  political  system  in  its  weakest  point, 
and  where,  at  this  time,  it  most  requires  defence./ 

The  great  and  leading  objections  to  the  bill  rest  mainly 
on  the  ground  that  Michigan  is  a  State.  They  have  been 
felt  by  its  friends  to  have  so  much  weight,  that  its  advocates 
have  been  compelled  to  deny  the  fact,  as  the  only  way  of 
meeting  the  objections.  Here,  then,  is  the  main  point  at 
issue  between  the  friends  and  the  opponents  of  the  bill 
It  turns  on  a  fact,  and  that  fact  presents  the  question,  Is 
Michigan  a  State  ? 

If,  said  Mr.  C.,  there  ever  was  a  party  committed  on  a  fact 
— if  there  ever  was  one  estopped  from  denying  it— that  party 
is  the  present  majority  in  the  Senate, — and  that  fact  is,  that 
Michigan  is  a  State.  It  is  the  very  party  who  urged  through 
this  body,  at  the  last  session,  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  the 
State  of  Michigan — which  accepted  her  constitution,  and 


598  SPEECHES. 

declared  in  the  most  explicit  and  strongest  terms  that  she 
was  a  State.  I  will  not  take  up  the  time  of  the  Senate  by 
reading  this  solemn  declaration.  It  has  frequently  been 
read  during  this  debate,  is  familiar  to  all  who  hear  me,  and 
has  not  been  questioned  or  denied.  But  it  has  been  said 
there  is  a  condition  annexed  to  the  declaration,  with  which 
she  must  comply,  before  she  can  become  a  State.  There  is, 
indeed,  a  condition  ;  but  it  has  been  shown  by  my  colleague 
and  others,  from  the  plain  wording  of  the  act,  that  the  con- 
dition is  not  attached  to  the  acceptance  of  the  constitution, 
nor  the  declaration  that  she  is  a  State,  but  simply  to  her 
admission  into  the  Union.  I  will  not  repeat  the  argument, 
but,  in  order  to  place  the  subject  beyond  controversy,  I  shall 
recall  to  memory  the  history  of  the  last  session,  as  connected 
with  the  admission  of  Michigan.  The  facts  need  but  to  be 
referred  to,  in  order  to  revive  their  recollection. 

There  were  two  points  proposed  to  be  effected  by  the 
friends  of  the  bill  at  the  last  session.  The  first  was  to  settle 
the  controversy,  as  to  boundary,  between  Michigan  and 
Ohio ;  and  it  was  this  object  alone  which  imposed  the  con- 
dition that  Michigan  should  assent  to  the  boundary  pre- 
scribed by  the  act  as  the  condition  of  her  admission.  But 
there  was  another  object  to  be  accomplished.  Two  respect- 
able gentlemen,  who  had  been  elected  by  the  State  as  Sena- 
tors, were  then  waiting  to  take  their  seats  on  this  floor  ;  and 
the  other  object  of  the  bill  was  to  provide  for  their  taking 
their  seats  as  Senators  on  the  admission  of  the  State, — and 
for  this  purpose  it  was  necessary  to  make  the  positive  and 
unconditional  declaration  that  Michigan  was  a  State, — as  a 
State  only  could  choose  Senators,  by  an  express  provision  of 
the  constitution ;  and  hence  the  admission  was  made  con- 
ditional, and  the  declaration  that  she  was  a  State  was  made 
absolute,  in  order  to  effect  both  objects.  To  show  that  I 
am  correct,  I  will  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  the  third  section 
of  the  bill. 


SPEECHES.  599 

[The  section  was  read  accordingly  as  follows : — 

"  SECT.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  as  a  compliance  with  the 
fundamental  condition  of  admission  contained  in  the  last  preceding  section 
of  this  act,  the  boundaries  of  the  said  State  of  Michigan,  as  in  that  section 
described,  declared  and  established,  shall  receive  the  assent  of  a  convention  of 
delegates  elected  by  the  people  of  said  State,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  giving  the 
assent  herein  required ;  and  as  soon  as  the  assent  herein  required  shall  be 
given,  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  announce  the  same  by  pro- 
clamation ;  and  thereupon,  and  without  any  further  proceedings  on  the 
part  of  Congress,  the  admission  of  the  said  State  into  the  Union,  as  one  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  on  an  equal  footing  with  all  the  original 
States  in  every  respect  whatever,  shall  be  considered  as  complete,  and  the 
Senators  and  Representatives  who  have  been  elected  by  the  said  State  as 
its  representative  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  entitled 
to  take  their  seats  in  the  Senate  and  House  of  Reoresentatives  respectively, 
without  further  delay."] 

Mr.  Calkoun  then  asked — Does  not  every  Senator  see  the 
two  objects — the  one  to  settle  the  boundary,  and  the  other  to 
admit  her  Senators  to  a  seat  in  this  body  ;  and  that  the  sec- 
tion is  so  worded  as  to  effect  both,  in  the  manner  I  have 
stated  ?  If  this  needed  confirmation,  it  would  be  found  in  the 
debate  on  the  passage  of  the  bill,  when  the  ground  was  openly 
taken  by  the  present  majority,  that  Michigan  had  a  right  to 
form  her  constitution,  under  the  ordinance  of  1787,  with- 
out our  consent ;  and  that  she  was  of  right,  and  in  fact,  a 
State,  beyond  our  control 

I  will,  said  Mr,  C.,  explain  my  own  views  on  this  point, 
in  order  that  the  consistency  of  my  course  at  the  last  and 
present  session  may  be  clearly  seen. 

My  opinion  was,  and  still  is,  that  the  movement  of  the 
people  of  Michigan  in  forming  for  themselves  a  State  consti- 
tution, without  waiting  for  the  assent  of  Congress,  was  re- 
volutionary, as  it  threw  off  the  authority  of  the  United  States 
over  the  territory  ;  and  that  we  were  left  at  liberty  to  treat 
the  proceedings  as  revolutionary,  and  to  remand  her  to  her 
territorial  condition, — or  to  waive  the  irregularity,  and  to  re- 


600  SPEECHES. 

cognize  what  was  done  as  rightfully  done, — as  our  authoritj 
alone  was  concerned. 

My  impression  was,  that  the  former  was  the  proper 
course  ;  but  I  also  thought  that  the  act  remanding  her  back 
should  contain  our  assent  in  the  usual  manner  for  her  to 
form  a  constitution,  and  thus  to  leave  her  free  to  become  a 
State.  This,  however,  was  overruled.  The  opposite  opinion 
prevailed, — that  she  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  what  she  had 
done,  and  that  she  was,  as  I  have  stated,  a  State  both  in 
fact  and  right,  and  that  we  had  no  control  over  her  ;  and  our 
act  accordingly  recognized  her  as  a  State,  from  the  time  she 
had  adopted  her  constitution,  and  admitted  her  into  the 
Union  on  the  condition  of  her  assenting  to  the  prescribed 
boundaries.  Having  thus  solemnly  recognized  her  as  a 
State,  we  cannot  now  undo  what  was  then  done.  There 
were,  in  fact,  many  irregularities  in  the  proceedings,  all  of 
which  were  urged  in  vain  against  its  passage  ;  but  the  Pre- 
sidential election  was  then  pending,  and  the  vote  of  Michigan 
was  considered  of  sufficient  weight  to  overrule  all  objections, 
and  correct  all  irregularities.  They  were  all  accordingly 
overruled,  and  we  cannot  now  go  back. 

Such  was  the  course,  and  such  the  acts  of  the  majority 
at  the  last  session.     A  few  short  months  have  since  passed. 
Other  objects  are  now  to  be  effected,  and  all  is  forgotten  as 
completely  as  if  they  had  never  existed.     The  very  Senators 
who  then  forced  the  act  through,  on  the  ground  that  Michi- 
gan was  a  State,  have  wheeled  completely  round,  to  serve  the 
present  purpose,  and  taken  directly  the  opposite  ground ! 
We  live  in  strange  and  inconsistent  times.     Opinions  a?&«^ 
taken  up  and  laid  down,  as  suits  the  occasion,  without  hesi-  \ 
tation,  or  the  slightest  regard  to  principle  or  consistency.    It  \ 
indicates  an  unsound  state  of  the  public  mind,  pregnant  with    I 
future  disasters.  ^s^ 

I  turn  to  the  position  now  assumed  by  the  majority  to 
suit  the  present  occasion  ;  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  it  will  be 


601 

found  as  false  in  fact,  and  as  erroneous  in  principle,  as  it  is  in- 
consistent with  that  maintained  at  the  last  session.  They  now 
take  the  ground,  that  Michigan  is  not  a  State,  and  cannot, 
in  fact,  be  a  State  till  she  is  admitted  into  the  Union  ;  and 
this  on  the  broad  principle  that  a  territory  cannot  become  a 
State  till  admitted.  Such  is  the  position  distinctly  taken  by 
several  of  the  friends  of  this  bill,  and  implied  in  the  argu- 
ments of  nearly  all  who  have  spoken  in  its  favor.  In  fact, 
its  advocates  had  no  choice.  As  untenable  as  it  is,  they 
were  forced  on  this  desperate  position.  They  had  no  other 
which  they  could  occupy. 

I  have  shown  that  it  is  directly  in  the  face  of  the  law  of 
the  last  session,  and  that  it  denies  the  recorded  acts  of 
those  who  now  maintain  it.  I  now  go  further,  and  assert 
that  it  is  in  direct  opposition  to  plain  and  unquestion- 
able matter  of  fact.  There  is  no  fact  more  certain  than  that 
Michigan  is  a  State.  She  is  in  the  full  exercise  of  sovereign 
authority,  with  a  legislature  and  a  chief  magistrate.  She 
passes  laws ;  she  executes  them  ;  she  regulates  titles ;  and 
even  takes  away  life — all  on  her  own  authority.  Ours  has 
entirely  ceased  over  her  ;  and  yet  there  are  those  who  can 
deny,  with  all  these  facts  before  them,  that  she  is  a  State. 
They  might  as  well  deny  the  existence  of  this  Hall !  We 
have  long  since  assumed  unlimited  control  over  the  consti- 
tution, to  twist,  and  turn,  and  deny  it,  as  it  suited  our  pur- 
pose j — and  it  would  seem  that  we  are  presumptuously  at- 
tempting to  assume  like  supremacy  over  facts  themselves, 
as  if  their  existence  or  non-existence  depended  on  OUT 
volition.  I  speak  freely.  The  occasion  demands  that  the 
truth  should  be  boldly  uttered. 

But  those  who  may  not  regard  their  own  recorded  acts,  nor 
the  plain  facts  of  the  case,  may  possibly  feel  the  awkward 
condition  in  which  coming  events  may  shortly  place  them. 
The  admission  of  Michigan  is  not  the  only  point  involved  in 
the  passage  of  this  bill.  A  question  will  follow,— which  may 


602  SPEECHES. 

be  presented  to  the  Senate  in  a  very  few  days, — as  to  the 
right  of  Mr.  Norvell  and  Mr.  Lyon,  the  two  respectable 
gentlemen  who  have  been  elected  Senators  of  Michigan,  to 
take  their  seats  in  this  Hall.  The  decision  of  this  question 
will  require  a  more  sudden  facing  about  than  has  been  yet 
witnessed.  It  required  seven  or  eight  months  for  the  ma- 
jority to  wheel  about  from  the  position  maintained  at  the 
last  session  to  that  taken  at  this,  but  there  may  not  be  allow- 
ed them  now  as  many  days  to  wheel  back  to  the  old  position. 
These  gentlemen  cannot  be  refused  their  seats  after  the  ad- 
mission of  the  State  by  those  gentlemen  who  passed  the  act 
of  the  last  session.  It  provides  for  the  case.  I  now  put  it 
to  the  friends  of  this  bill,  and  I  ask  them  to  weigh  the  ques- 
tion deliberately — to  bring  it  home  to  their  bosoms  and  con- 
sciences before  they  answer — Can  a  territory  elect  Senators 
to  Congress  ?  The  constitution  is  express  ;  States  only  can 
choose  Senators.  Were  not  these  gentlemen  chosen  long  be- 
fore the  admission  of  Michigan ;  before  the  Ann  Arbor 
meeting,  and  while  Michigan  was,  according  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  friends  of  this  bill,  a  territory  ?  Will  they,  in  the  face 
of  the  constitution,  which  they  are  sworn  to  support,  admit 
as  Senators  on  this  floor  those  who,  by  their  own  statement, 
were  elected  by  a  territory  ?  These  questions  may  soon  be 
presented  for  decision.  The  majority,  who  are  forcing  this 
bill  through,  are  already  committed  by  the  act  of  the  last 
session,  and  I  leave  them  to  reconcile,  as  they  can,  the 
ground  they  now  take  with  the  vote  they  must  give  when 
the  question  of  their  right  to  take  their  seats  is  presented  for 
decision. 

A  total  disregard  of  all  principle  and  consistency  has  so 
entangled  this  subject,  that  there  is  but  one  mode  left  of 
extricating  ourselves  without  trampling  the  constitution  in 
the  dust ;  and  that  is,  to  return  back  to  where  we  stood  when 
the  question  was  first  presented  ;  to  acquiesce  in  the  right  of 
Michigan  to  form  a  constitution,  and  erect  herself  into  a 


SPEECHES.  603 

State,  under  the  ordinance  of  1787  ;  and  to  repeal  so  much 
of  the  act  of  the  last  session  as  prescribed  the  condition  on 
which  she  was  to  be  admitted.  This  was  the  object  of  the 
amendment  which  I  offered  last  evening,  in  order  to  relieve  the 
Senate  from  its  present  dilemma.  The  amendment  involved 
the  merits  of  the  whole  case.  It  was  too  late  in  the  day  for 
discussion,  and  I  asked  for  indulgence  till  to-day,  that  I  might 
have  an  opportunity  of  presenting  my  views.  Under  the  iron 
rule  of  the  present  majority,  the  indulgence  was  refused,  and 
the  bill  ordered  to  its  third  reading ;  and  I  have  been  thus 
compelled  to  address  the  Senate  when  it  is  too  late  to  amend 
the  bill,  and  after  a  majority  have  committed  themselves  both 
as  to  its  principles  and  details.  Now,  of  such  proceedings  I 
complain  not.  I,  as  one  of  the  minority,  ask  no  favors.  All 
I  ask  is,  that  the  constitution  be  not  violated.  Hold  it 
sacred,  and  I  shall  be  the  last  to  complain. 

I  now  return  to  the  assumption,  that  a  territory  cannot 
become  a  State  till  admitted  into  the  Union,  which  is  now 
relied  on  with  so  much  confidence  to  prove  that  Michigan  is 
not  a  State.  I  reverse  the  position.  I  assert  the  opposite, 
that  a  territory  cannot  be  admitted  till  she  becomes  a  State  ; 
and  in  this,  I  stand  on  the  authority  of  the  constitution  itself, 
which  expressly  limits  the  power  of  Congress  to  admitting 
new  States  into  the  Union.  But,  if  the  constitution  had  been 
silent,  he  would  indeed  be  ignorant  of  the  character  of  our 
political  system,  who  does  not  see  that  States,  sovereign  and 
independent  communities,  and  not  territories,  can  only  be 
admitted.  Ours  is  a  Union  of  States,  a  Federal  Republic. 
States,  and  not  territories,  form  its  component  parts,  bound 
together  by  a  solemn  league,  in  the  form  of  a  constitutional 
compact.  In  coming  into  the  Union,  the  State  pledges  its 
faith  to  this  sacred  compact ;  an  act  which  none  but  a  sov 
ereign  and  independent  community  is  competent  to  perform 
and,  of  course,  a  territory  must  first  be  raised  to  that  con 
dition  before  she  can  take  her  stand  among  the  confed 


604  SPEECHES. 

States  of  our  Union.  How  can  a  territory  pledge  its  faith 
to  the  constitution  ?  It  has  no  will  of  its  own.  You  give  it 
all  its  powers,  and  you  can  at  pleasure  overrule  all  her  actions. 
If  she  enters  as  a  territory,  the  act  is  yours,  not  hers.  Her 
consent  is  nothing  without  your  authority  and  sanction.  Can 
you — can  Congress,  become  a  party  to  the  constitutional 
compact  ?  How  absurd. 

But  I  am  told,  if  this  be  so,  if  a  territory  must  become 
State  before  it  can  be  admitted,  it  would  follow  that  she 
ight  refuse  to  enter  the  Union  after  she  had  acquired  the 
right  of  acting  for  herself.  Certainly  she  may.  A  State 
cannot  deforced  into  the  Union.  She  must  come  in  by  her 
own  free  assent,  given  in  her  highest  sovereign  capacity 
through  a  convention  of  the  people  of  the  State.  Such  is  the 
constitutional  provision  ;  and  those  who  make  the  objection 
must  overlook  both  the  constitution  and  the  elementary  prin- 
ciples of  our  Government,  of  which  the  right  of  self-govern- 
ment is  the  first;  the  right  of  every  people  to  form  their 
own  government,  and  to  determine  their  political  condition. 
This  is  the  doctrine  on  which  our  fathers  acted  in  our  glorious 
Revolution,  which  has  done  more  for  the  cause  of  liberty 
throughout  the  world  than  any  event  within  the  records  of 
history, — and  on  which  the  Government  has  acted  from  the 
first,  as  regards  all  that  portion  of  our  extensive  territory  that 
lies  beyond  the  limits  of  the  original  States.  Read  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787,  and  the  various  acts  for  the  admission  of  new 
States,  and  you  will  find  the  principle  invariably  recognized 
.d  acted  on,  to  the  present  unhappy  instance,  without  any 
parture  from  it,  except  in  the  case  of  Missouri.  The  ad- 
ion  of  Michigan  is  destined,  I  fear,  to  mark  a  great 
.ge  in  the  history  of  the  admission  of  new  States  ;  a  total 
;ure  from  the  old  usage,  and  the  noble  principle  of  self- 
government  on  which  that  usage  was  founded.  Every  thing, 
thus  far,  connected  with  her  admission,  has  been  irregular 
and  monstrous.  I  trust  it  is  not  ominous.  Surrounded  by 


SPEECHES.  605 

lakes  within  her  natural  limits  (which  ought  not  to  have 
been  departed  from),  and  possessed  of  fertile  soil  and  genial 
climate,  with  every  prospect  of  wealth,  power,  and  influence, 
who  but  must  regret  that  she  should  be  ushered  into  the 
Union  in  a  manner  so  irregular  and  unworthy  of  her  future 
destiny. 

But  I  will  waive  these  objections,  constitutional  and  all. 
I  will  suppose,  with  the  advocates  of  the  bill,  that  a  terri- 
tory cannot  become  a  State  till  admitted  into  the  Union. 
Assuming  all  this,  I  ask  them  to  explain  to  me  how  the  mere 
act  of  admission  can  transmute  a  territory  into  a  State  ?j 
By  whose  authority  would  she  be  made  a  State  ?  By  ours  f 
How  can  we  make  a  State  ?  We  can  form  a  territory  ;  wfiy 
can  admit  States  into  the  Union  ;  but,  I  repeat  the  question, 
how  can  we  make  a  State  ?  I  had  supposed  this  Govern- 
ment was  the  creature  of  the  States — formed  by  their  au- 
thority, and  dependent  on  their  will  for  its  existence.  Can 
the  creature  form  the  creator  ?  If  not  by  our  authority, 
then  by  whose  ?  Not  by  her  own — that  would  be  absurd. 
The  very  act  of  admission  makes  her  a  member  of  the  Con- 
federacy, with  no  other  or  greater  power  than  is  possessed  by 
all  the  others;  all  of  whom,  united,  cannot  create  a  State. 
By  what  process,  then,  by  what  authority,  can  a  territory 
become  a  State,  if  not  one  before  it  is  admitted  ?  Who  can 
explain  ?  How  full  of  difficulties,  compared  to  the  long  estab- 
lished, simple,  and  noble  process  which  has  prevailed  to  the 
present  instant.  According  to  old  usage,  the  General  Gov- 
ernment first  withdraws  its  authority  over  a  certain  portion/ 
of  its  territory,  as  soon  as  it  has  a  sufficient  population  to 
constitute  a  State.  They  are  thus  left  to  themselves  freely 
to  form  a  constitution,  and  to  exercise  the  noble  right  of  self- 
government.  They  then  present  their  constitution  to  Congress,' 
and  ask  the  privilege  (for  one  it  is  of  the  highest  character) 
to  become  a  member  of  this  glorious  confederacy  of  States. 
The  constitution  is  examined, — and,  if  republican,  as  require<l 


606  SPEECHES. 

/by  the  federal  constitution,  she  is  admitted,  with  no  other 
I  condition  except  such  as  may  be  necessary  to  secure  the  au- 
s  thority  of  Congress  over  the  public  domain  within  her  limits. 
/This  is  the  old,  the  established  form,  instituted  by  our  ances- 
/  tors  of  the  Revolution,  who  so  well  understood  the  great  prin- 
typles  of  liberty  and  self-government.  How  simple  !  how 
sublime  !  What  a  contrast  to  the  doctrines  of  the  present 
day,  and  the  precedent  which,  I  fear,  we  are  about  to  estab- 
lish !  And  shall  we  fear,  so  long  as  these  sound  principles  are 
observed,  that  a  State  will  reject  this  high  privilege — will 
refuse  to  enter  this  Union  ?  No  ;  she  will  rush  into  your 
embrace,  so  long  as  your  institutions  are  worth  preserving. 
When  the  advantages  of  the  Union  shall  have  become  a 
matter  of  calculation  and  doubt  ;  when  new  States  shall  pause 
to  determine  whether  the  Union  is  a  curse  or  blessing,  the 
question  which  now  agitates  us  will  cease  to  have  any  im- 
portance. 

Having  now,  I  trust,  established  beyond  all  controversy, 
that  Michigan  is  a  State,  I  come  to  the  great  point  at  issue 
— to  the  decision  of  which  all  that  has  been  said  is  but  pre- 
paratory— Had  the  self-created  assembly  which  met  at  Ann 
Arbor  the  authority  to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  people  of 
Michigan  ;  to  assent  to  the  conditions  contained  in  the  act  of 
the  last  session  ;  to  supersede  a  portion  of  the  constitution  of 
the  State,  and  to  overrule  the  dissent  of  the  convention  of 
the  people — regularly  called  by  the  constituted  authorities  of 
the  State — to  the  condition  of  admission  ?  I  shall  not  repeat 
what  I  said  when  I  first  addressed  the  Senate  on  this  bill. 
We  all,  by  this  time,  know  the  character  of  that  assemblage  ; 
that  it  met  without  the  sanction  of  the  authorities  of  the 
State  ;  and  that  it  did  not  pretend  to  represent  one-third  of 
the  people.  We  all  know  that  the  State  had  regularly  con- 
vened a  convention  of  the  people,  expressly  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  condition  on  which  it  was  proposed  to  admit 
her  into  the  Union;  and  that  the  convention,  after  full 


SPEECHES.  607 

deliberation,  had  declined  to  give  its  assent  by  a  considerable 
majority.  With  a  knowledge  of  all  these  facts,  I  put  the 
question — Had  the  assembly  a  right  to  act  for  the  State  ? 
Was  it  a  convention  of  the  people  of  Michigan  in  the  true, 
legal,  and  constitutional  sense  of  that  term  ?  Is  there  one 
within  the  limits  of  my  voice,  that  can  lay  his  hand  on  his 
breast,  and  honestly  say,  it  was  ?  Is  there  one  that  does  not 
feel  that  it  was  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  mere,  caucus — 
nothing  but  a  party  caucus — of  which  we  have  the  strongest 
evidence  in  the  perfect  unanimity  of  those  who  assembled  ? 
Not  a  vote  was  given  against  admission.  Can  there  be 
stronger  proof  that  it  was  a  meeting  got  up  by  party  ma- 
chinery, for  party  purpose  ? 

But  I  go  further.  It  was  not  only  a  party  caucus,  for 
party  purpose,  but  a  criminal  meeting — a  meeting  to  subvert 
the  authority  of  the  State,  and  to  assume  its  sovereignty.  I 
know  not  whether  Michigan  has  yet  passed  laws  to  guard  her 
sovereignty.  It  may  be  that  she  has  not  had  time  to  enact 
laws  for  this  purpose,  which  no  community  is  long  without ; 
but  I  do  aver,  if  there  be  such  an  act,  or  if  the  common 
law  be  in  force  in  the  State,  the  actors  in  that  meeting 
might  be  indicted,  tried,  and  punished  for  the  very  act  on 
which  it  is  now  proposed  to  admit  the  State  into  the  Union. 
If  such  a  meeting  as  this  were  to  undertake  to  speak  in  the 
name  of  South  Carolina,  we  would  speedily  teach  its  authors 
what  they  owed  to  the  authority  and  dignity  of  the  State. 
The  act  was  not  only  in  contempt  of  the  authority  of  the 
State  of  Michigan,  but  a  direct  insult  to  this  Government. 
Here  is  a  self-created  meeting,  convened  for  a  criminal 
object,  which  has  dared  to  present  to  this  Government 
an  act  of  theirs,  and  to  ask  that  we  receive  it  as  a 
fulfilment  of  the  condition  which  we  had  prescribed  for 
the  admission  of  the  State  !  Yet,  I  fear,  forgetting  our  own 
dignity,  and  the  rights  of  Michigan,  that  we  are  about  to 


608  SPEECHES. 

recognize  the  validity  of  the  act,  and  quietly  to  submit  to  the 
insult. 

The  year  1836,  said  Mr.  C.,  is  destined  to  mark  the 

lost  remarkable  change  in  our  political  institutions,  since 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  The  events  of  the  year 
have  made  a  deeper  innovation  on  the  principles  of  the  con- 
,  stitution,  and  evinced  a  stronger  tendency  to  revolution,  than 

ly  which  have  occurred  from  its  adoption  to  the  present 
Sir,  said  Mr.  C.  (addressing  the  Yice-President),  duty 
compels   me    to   speak  of  facts  intimately  connected  with 
yourself.     In  deference  to  your  feelings  as  presiding  officer  of 
the  body,  I  shall  speak  of  them  with  all  possible  reserve — 
much  more  reserve  than  L-^hould  otherwise  have  done  if  you 
did  not  occupy  that  seati^jX111011?  the  first  of  these  events 
which  I  shall  notice,  is  the  caucus  at  Baltimore  ;  that  too, 
like  the  Ann  Arbor  caucus,  has  been  dignified  with  the' 
name  of  a  convention  of  the  people.     This  caucus  was  got 
up  under  the  countenance  and  express  authority  of  the  Pi 
sident  himself ;  and  its  edict,  appointing  you  his  successor,, 
has  been  sustained, — not  only  by  the  whole  patronage 
power  of  the  Government,  but  by  his  active  personal  infli 
ence  and  exertion.     Through  its  instrumentality  he  has  sue 
ceeded  in  controlling  the  voice  of  the  people,  and  for 
first  time  the  President  has  appointed  his  successor ; 
thus,  the  first  great  step — of  converting  our  Government  intoi 
a  monarchy,  has  been  sustained.     These  are  solemn  and  omi- 
nous facts.     No  one  who  has  examined  the  result  of  tl 
last  election  can  doubt  their  truth.     It  is  now  certain  tl 
you  are  not  the  free  and  unbiased  choice  of  the  people  of, 
these  United  States.     If  left  to  your  own  popularity, — with-i 
out  the  active  and  direct  influence  of  the  President,  and  the 
power  and  patronage  of  the  Government,  acting  through  a< 
mock  convention  of  the  people, — instead  of  the  highest,  you ' 
would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  the  lowest  of  the  can-/ 
didates. 


SPEECHES.  609 

During  the  same  year,  the  State  in  which  this  ill-cm* 
caucus  convened,  has  been  agitated  by  revolutionary  move-^ 
ments  of  ^the  most  alarming  character.  Assuming  the  dan- 
gerous doctrine  that  they  were  not  bound  to  obey  the  in- 
junctions of  the  constitution,  because  it  did  not  place  the] 
powers  of  the  State  in  the  hands  of  an  unchecked  numeric 
majority,  the  electors  belonging  to  the  party  of  the  Balti-y 
more  caucus,  who  had  been  chosen  to  appoint  the  State 
Senators,  refused  to  perform  the  functions  for  which  they 
had  been  elected,  with  the  deliberate  intention  of  subverting 
the  government  of  the  State,  and  reducing  her  to  the  con- 
dition of  a  territory,  till  a  new  government  could  be  formed. 
And  now  we  have  before  us  a  measure,  not  less  revolution- 
ary, but  of  an  opposite  character.  In  the  case  of  Mary- 
land, those  who  undertook,  without  the  authority  of  law 
or  constitution,  to  speak  and  act  in  the  name  of  the  people 
of  the  State,  proposed  to  place  her  out  of  the  Union  by  re- 
ducing her  from  a  State  to  a  territory ;  but  in  this,  those 
who,  in  like  manner,  undertook  to  act  for  Michigan,  have 
assumed  the  authority  to  bring  her  into  the  Union  without 
her  consent,  the  very  condition  which  she  had  rejected 
by  a  convention  of  the  people,  convened  under  the  autho- 
rity of  the  State.  If  we  sanction  the  authority  of  the 
Michigan  caucus  to  force  a  State  into  the  Union  without  its 
consent,  why  might  we  not  here  sanction  a  similar  caucus  in 
Maryland,  if  one  had  been  called,  to  place  the  State  out  of 
the  Union  ? 

These  occurrences,  which  have  distinguished  the 
year,  mark  the  commencement  of  no  ordinary  change  in  our) 
political  system.     They  announce  the  ascendency  of  the  cai 
cus  system  over  the  regularly  constituted  authorities  of  the. 
country.     I  have  long  anticipated  this  event.     In  early  life 
my  attention  was  attracted  to  the  working  of  the 
system.     It  was  my  fortune  to  spend  five  or  six  years  of  m] 
youth  in  the  northern  portion  of  the  Union,  where,  unfortu- 
VOL.  ii.— 39 


610  SPEECHES. 

natery,  the  system  has  so  long  prevailed.     Though  young, 
/I  was  old  enough  to  take  interest  in  public  affairs,  and  to 
(notice    the  working  of  this  odious   party  machine ;   and, 
I  after  reflection,  with  the  experience  then  acquired,  has  long 
Satisfied  me  that,  in  the  course  of  time,  the  edicts  of  the 
;aucus  would  eventually  supersede  the  authority  of  law  and 
ionstitution.     We  have  at  last  arrived  at  the  commence- 
;  nent  of  this  great  change  which  is  destined  to  go  on  till  it 
<has  consummated  itself  in  the  entire  overthrow  of  all  legal  and 
^constitutional  authority,  unless  speedily  and  effectually  re- 
/gisted.      The  reason  is  obvious :   for  obedience  or   disobe- 
^  dience  to  the  edicts  of  the  caucus,  where  the  system  is  firmly 
I  established,  is  more  certainly  and  effectually  rewarded   or 
htounished,  than  obedience  to  the  laws  and  to  the  constitution. 
^Disobedience  to  the  former  is  sure  to  be  followed  by  complete 
itical  disfranchisement.  It  deprives  the  unfortunate  indivi- 
Lual  who  falls  under  its  vengeance,  of  all  public  honors  and 
Loluments,  and  consigns  him,  if  dependent  on  the  Grovera- 
'ment,  to  poverty  and  obscurity ;  while  he  who  bows  down 
ibre  its  mandates,  it  matters  not  how  monstrous,  secures 
himself  the  honors  of  the  State — becomes  rich,  and  dis- 
tinguished, and  powerful.     Offices,  jobs,  and  contracts,  flow 
on  him  and  his  connections.     But  to  obey  the  law  and  re- 
A^spect  the  constitution,  for  the  most  part  brings  little  except 
ithe  approbation  of  conscience — a  reward,  indeed,  high  and 
[noble,  and  prized  by  the  virtuous  above  all  other, — but,  un- 
fortunately, little  valued  by  the  mass  of  mankind.      It  is 
easy  to  see  what  must  be  the  end,  unless  indeed,  an  effective 
remedy  be  applied.     Are  we  so  blind  as  not  to  see  in  this, 
why  it  is  that  the  advocates  of  this  bill — the  friends  of  the 
system,  are  so  tenacious  on  the  point  that  Michigan  should 
be   admitted  on  the  authority  of  the  Ann  Arbor  caucus, 
and  on  no  other  ?     Do  we  not  see  why  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  myself  to  admit  her,  by  rescinding  the  condition 
imposed  at  the  last  session,  should  be   so  strenuously  op- 


SPEECHES.  611 

posed  ?  Why,  even  the  preamble  would  not  be  surrendered  ; 
though  many  of  our  friends  were  willing  to  vote  for  the  bill 
on  that  slight  concession,  in  their  anxiety  to  admit  the 
State. 

And  here  let  me  say,  that  I  listened  with  attention  to 
the  speech  of  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  Crittenden). 
I  know  the  clearness  of  his  understanding,  and  the  sound- 
ness of  his  heart  ;  and  I  am  persuaded,  in  declaring  that  his 
objection  to  the  bill  was  confined  to  the  preamble,  that  he 
has  not  investigated  the  subject  with  the  attention  it  de- 
serves. I  feel  the  objections  to  the  preamble  are  not  with- 
out some  weight  ;  but  the  true  and  insuperable  objections 
lie  far  deeper  in  the  facts  of  the  case,  which  would  still 
exist  were  the  preamble  expunged.  It  is  these  which  render 
it  impossible  to  pass  this  bill  without  trampling  under  foot 
the  rights  of  the  States,  a.nd  subverting  the  first  principles  of 
our  Government.  It  would  require  but  a  few  steps  more  to 
eflfect  a  complete  revolution,  —  and  the  Senator  from  North 
Carolina  has  taken  the  first.  I  will  explain.  Tfjou  wish  to 
markjhe  first  indications  of  a  revolution  ;  —  f.hp.  nnmmp.npremp.nt 
oTtliose  profound  change  in  thp.  nha.rap.ter  of  a  people  which 
hpfnrP  a  ripplp  upppjmi  nn  fhp 


looklo  the  change  of  language.  YnnjvjjTjfirst.  nntine  it.  in 
the  altered  meaning  of  important  words  j  —  which.,  as^it 
indicates  a  change  hi  the  feejings^and  principles  of  the  peo- 
ple,  becomes,  in  turn,  a  powerful  instrument  in  accelerating 
the  change,  till  an  entire  revolution  is  effected.  The  re- 
marks of  the  Senator  will  illustrate  what  1  have  said.  He 
told  us  that  the  terms  "  convention  of  the  people  "  were  of 
very  uncertain  meaning,  and  difficult  to  be  defined  ;  —  but  that 
their  true  meaning  was,  any  meeting  of  the  people  in  their 
individual  and  primary  character  for  political  purposes.  I 
know  it  is  difficult  to  define  complex  terms  ;  that  is,  to  enu- 
merate all  the  ideas  that  belong  to  them,  and  exclude  all 
that  do  not  ;  but  there  is  always,  in  the  most  complex, 


612  SPEECHES. 

^ome  prominent  idea  which  marks  the  meaning  of  the  terms, 
and  in  relation  to  which  there  is  usually  no  disagreement. 
Thus,  according  to  the  old  meaning  (and  which  I  had  sup- 
posed was  its  legal  and  constitutional  meaning),  a  convention 
of  the  people  invariably  implied  a  meeting  of  the  people, 
either  by  themselves,  or  by  delegates  expressly  chosen  for  the 
purpose,  in  their  liigh  sovereign  authority, — in  express  contra- 
distinction to  such  assemblies  of  individuals  in  their  private 
character,  or  having  only  derivative  authority.  It  is,  in  a  word, 
a  meeting  of  the  people  in  the  majesty  of  their  power — in 
that  in  which  they  may  rightfully  make  or  abolish  constitu- 
tutions,  and  put  up  or  put  down  governments  at  their  plea- 
sure. Such  was  the  august  conception  which  formerly  en- 
tered the  mind  of  every  American,  when  the  terms  "  conven- 
tion of  the  people  "  were  used.  But  now,  according  to  the 
ideas  of  the  dominant  party,  as  we  are  told  on  the  authority 
of  the  Senator  from  North  Carolina,  it  means  any  meeting 
of  individuals  for  political  purposes, — and,  of  course,  applies 
to  the  meeting  at  Ann  Arbor,  or  any  other  party  caucus  for 
party  purposes,  which  the  leaders  may  choose  to  designate  as  a 
convention  of  the  people.  It  is  thus  the  highest  authority 
known  to  our  laws  and  constitution,  is  gradually  sinking  to 
the  level  of  those  meetings  which  regulate  the  operation  of 
political  parties,  and  through  which,  the  edicts  of  their 
leaders  are  announced,  and  their  authority  enforced  ;  or, 
rather,  to  speak  more  correctly,  the  latter  are  gradually 
rising  to  the  authority  of  the  former.  When  they  come  to 
be  completely  confounded ;  when  the  distinction  between  a 
caucus  and  the  convention  of  the  people  shall  be  completely 
obliterated, — which  the  definition  of  the  Senator,  and  the 
acts  of  this  body  on  this  bill,  would  lead  us  to  believe  is  not 
far  distant, — this  fair  political  fabric  of  ours,  erected  by  the 
wisdom  and  patriotism  of  our  ancestors,  and  once  the  gaze 
and  admiration  of  the  world,  will  topple  to  the  ground  in 
ruins. 


It  has,  perhaps,  been  too  much  my  habit  to  look 
to  the  future  and  less  to  the  present,  than  is  wise  ;  but 
is  the  constitution  of  my  mind,  that,  when  I  see  before 
the  indications  of  causes  calculated  to  efi'ect  imports 
changes  in  our  political  condition,  I  am  led  irresistibly  to" 
trace  them  to  their  sources,  and  follow  them  out  in  their 
consequences.  Language  has  been  held  in  this 
which  is  clearly  revolutionary  in  its  character  and 
and  which  warns  us  of  the  approach  of  the  period 
struggle  will  be  between  the  conservatives  and  the  destructii 
I  understood  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Buchan- 
an) as  holding  language  countenancing  the  principle,  that 
the  will  of  a  mere  numerical  majority  is  paramount  to  the 
authority  of  law  and  constitution.  He  did  not,  indeed,  an- 
nounce distinctly  this  principle,  but  it  might  fairly  be  in- 
ferred from  what  he  said  ;  for  he  told  us  the  people  of  a 
State,  where  the  constitution  gives  the  same  weight  to  a 
smaller  as  to  a  greater  number,  might  take  the  remedy  into 
their  own  hands  ;  meaning,  as  I  understood  him,  that  a 
mere  majority  might,  at  their  pleasure,  subvert  the  constitu- 
tion and  government  of  a  State, — which  he  seemed  to  think 
was  the  essence  of  democracy.  Our  little  State  has  a  con- 
stitution that  could  not  stand  a  day  against  such  doctrines, 
and  yet  we  glory  in  it  as  the  best  in  the  Union.  It  is  a  con- 
stitution which  respects  all  the  great  interests  of  the  State — 
giving  to  each  a  separate  and  distinct  voice  in  the  manage- 
ment of  its  political  affairs, — by  means  of  which  the  feebler 
interests  are  protected  against  the  preponderance  of  the 
stronger.  We  call  our  State  a  Kepublic — a  Commonwealth, 
not  a  Democracy ;  and  let  me  tell  the  Senator  it  is  a  far 
more  popular  government  than  if  it  had  been  based  on  the 
simple  principle  of  the  numerical  majority.  It  takes  more 
voices  to  put  the  machine  of  government  in  motion,  than 
in  those  that  the  Senator  would  consider  more  popular.  It 
represents  all  the  interests  of  the  State, — and  is  in  fact  the 


614  SPEECHES. 

government  of  the  people,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term, 
and  not  that  of  the  mere  majority,  or  the  dominant  in- 
terests. 

I  am  not  familiar  with  the  constitution  of  Maryland,  to 
which  the  Senator  alluded,  and  cannot,  therefore,  speak  of  its 
structure  with  confidence  ;  but  I  believe  it  to  be  somewhat 
similar  in  its  character  to  our  own.  That  it  is  a  government 
not  without  its  excellence,  we  need  no  better  proof  than  the 
fact,  that,  though  within  the  shadow  of  Executive  influence, 
it  has  nobly  and  successfully  resisted  all  the  seductions  by 
which  a  corrupt  and  artful  Administration,  with  almost 
boundless  patronage,  has  attempted  to  seduce  her  into  its 
ranks. 

Looking,  then,  to  the  approaching  struggle,  I  take  my 
/stand  immovably.     I  am  a  conservative  in  its  "broadest  and 
I  fullest  sense,  and  such  I  shall  ever  remain,  unless,  indeed,  the 
I    Government  shall  become  so  corrupt  and  disordered,  that 
I    nothing  short  of  revolution  can  reform  it.    I  solemnly  believe 
that  our  political  system  is,  in  its  purity,  not  only  the  best 
I     that  ever  was  formed,  but  the  best  possible  that  can  be  de- 
^  vised  for  us.     It  is  the  only  one  by  which  free  States,  so 
populous  and  wealthy,  and  occupying  so  vast  an  extent  of 
territory,  can  preserve  their  liberty.     Thus  thinking,  I  can- 
not hope  for  a  better.     Having  no  hope  of  a  better,  I  am  a 
/  conservative ;  and  because  I  am  a  conservative,  I  am  a  State 
!    Hights  man.     I  believe  that  in  the  rights  of  the  States  are 
I     to  be  found  the  only  effectual  means  of  checking  the  over- 
action  of  this  Government ;  to  resist  its  tendency  to  concen- 
\    trate  all  power  here,  and  to  prevent  a  departure  from  the 
\  constitution  ;  or,  in  case  of  one,  to  restore  the  Government 
)  to  its  original  simplicity  and  purity.     State  interposition,  or, 
/to  express  it  more  fully,  the  right  of  a  State  to  interpose 
/  her  sovereign  voice  as  one  of  the  parties  to  our  constitutional 
compact,  against  the  encroachments  of  this  Government,  is 
the  only  means  of  sufficient  potency  to  effect  all  this  ;  and  I 


SPEECHES.  615 

am,  therefore,  its  advocate.  I  rejoiced  to  hear  the  Senator 
from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Brown),  and  from  Pennsylvania 
(Mr.  Buchanan),  do  us  the  justice  to  distinguish  between  nul- 
lification and  the  anarchical  and  revolutionary  movements  in 
Maryland  and  Pennsylvania.  I  know  they  did  not  intend  it 
as  a  compliment ;  but  I  regard  it  as  the  highest.  They  are 
right.  Day  and  night  are  not  more  different— more  unlike 
in  every  thing.  They  are  unlike  in  their  principles,  their 
objects,  and  their  consequences. 

I  shall  not  stop  to  make  good  this  assertion,  as  I  might 
easily  do.  The  occasion  does  not  call  for  it.  As  a  conserva- 
tive, and  a  State  Eights  man,  or  if  you  will  have  it,  a  nulli 
fier,  I  have  resisted,  and  shall  resist  all  encroachments  on 
constitution — whether  of  this  Government  on  the  rights 
the  States,  or  the  opposite  : — whether  of  the  Executive 
Congress,  or  Congress  on  the  Executive.  My  creed  is  to 
both  governments,  and  all  the  departments  of  each  to 
proper  sphere, — and  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  laws 
the  constitution  against  all  revolutionary  movements.  I 
lieve  the  means  which  our  system  furnishes  to  preserve  it 
are  ample,  if  fairly  understood  and  applied  ;  and  I  shall  resort 
to  them,  however  corrupt  and  disordered  the  times,  so  1 
as  there  is  hope  of  reforming  the  Government.  The  resu 
is  in  the  hands  of  the  Disposer  of  events.  It  is  my  part  to 
do  my  duty.  Yet,  while  I  thus  openly  avow  myself  a  con- 
servative, God  forbid  I  should  ever  deny  the  glorious 
of  rebellion  and  revolution.  Should  corruption  and  op; 
sion  become  intolerable,  and  not  otherwise  be  thrown  off— 
if  liberty  must  perish,  or  the  government  be  overthrown, 
would  not  hesitate,  at  the  hazard  of  life,  to  resort  to  revoj 
lution,  and  to  tear  down  a  corrupt  government  that  coulc^ 
neither  be  reformed  nor  borne  by  freemen.  But  I  trust  inj 
God  things  will  never  come  to  that  pass.  I  trust  never  t 
see  such  fearful  tunes ;  for  fearful,  indeed,  they  would  be, 
if  they  should  ever  befall  us.  It  is  the  last  remedy,  an 


616  SPEECHES. 

,not  to  be  thought  of  till  common  sense  and  the  voice  of  man- 

/kind  would  justify  the  resort. 

Before  I  resume  my  seat,  I  feel  called  on  to  make  a  few 
brief  remarks  on  a  doctrine  of  fearful  import,  which  has  been 
broached  in  the  course  of  this  debate — the  right  to  repeal  laws 
granting  bank  charters,  and,  of  course,  of  railroads,  turnpikes, 
and  joint-stock  companies.  It  is  a  doctrine  of  fearful  import 
and  calculated  to  do  infinite  mischief.  There  are  countless 
millions  vested  in  such  stocks,  and  it  is  a  description  of  pro- 
perty of  the  most  delicate  character.  To  touch  it  is  almost 
to  destroy  it.  But,  while  I  enter  my  protest  against  all  such 
doctrines,  I  have  been  greatly  alarmed  with  the  thoughtless 
precipitancy  (not  to  use  a  stronger  phrase)  with  which  the 
most  extensive  and  dangerous  privileges  have  been  granted 
of  late.  It  can  end  in  no  good,  and,  I  fear,  may  be  the 
cause  of  convulsions  hereafter.  We  already  feel  the  ef- 
fects on  the  currency,  which  no  one  competent  of  judging 
can  fail  to  see,  is  in  an  unsound  condition.  I  must  say  (for 
truth  compels  me)  I  have  ever  distrusted  the  banking  sys- 
tem, at  least  in  its  present  form,  both  in  this  country  and 
Great  Britain.  It  will  not  stand  the  test  of  time ;  but  I 
trust  that  all  shocks,  or  sudden  revolutions,  may  be  avoided, — 
and  that  it  may  gradually  give  way,  before  some  sounder  and 
better  regulated  system  of  credit,  which  the  growing  intelli- 
gence of  the  age  may  devise.  That  a  better  may  be  substi- 
tuted I  cannot  doubt ;  but  of  what  it  shall  consist,  and  how 
it  shall  finally  supersede  the  present  uncertain  and  fluctuat- 
ing currency,  time  alone  can  determine.  All  that  I  can  see 
is,  that  the  present  must,  one  day  or  another,  come  to  an  end, 
or  be  greatly  modified — if  that,  indeed,  can  save  it  from  an 
entire  overthrow.  It  has  within  itself  the  seeds  of  its  own 
destruction. 


SPEECHES.  617 


SPEECH 

On  the  Motion  to  recommit  the  Land  Bill,  introduced 
by  Mr.  Walker,  of  Mississippi,  to  the  Committee 
on  Public  Lands ;  delivered  in  the  Senate,  Feb- 
ruary 4th,  1837. 

[In  the  Senate,  February  4th,  1837.— The  Bill  reported  by  Mr. 
Walker,  in  respect  to  the  proper  disposition  of  the  public  lands,  having 
undergone  various  modifications, — and  Mr.  W.  having  declared  that, 
in  the  shape  to  which  it  had  been  reduced,  the  Bill  could  not  receive 
his  support,  it  was  about  to  be  rejected : — when,  to  give  the  friends 
of  the  measure  a  further  chance,  a  motion  was  made  to  recommit  it 
to  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  in  order  that  it  might  be  reported 
to  the  Senate  in  a  more  acceptable  form.  On  this  motion,  Mr.  C. 
said:] 

I  SINCEKELY  hope  that  the  motion  for  recommitment 
will  not  prevail.  The  session  is  now  far  advanced ;  but  a 
single  month  more  remains,  and  this  bill  has  already  occu- 
pied more  than  its  due  share  of  the  time  and  attention  of 
the  Senate.  The  discussion  which  it  has  undergone  has 
shown  that  there  exists  in  this  body  a  great  diversity  of 
opinion,  not  on  the  details  only,  but  on  the  principles  of  the 
bill.  A  large  portion  of  the  Senate  are  under  the  impression 
that  nothing  ought  to  be  done  ;  and,  among  the  residue  who 
are  in  favor  of  some  bill,  the  difference  of  opinion  seems  to 
be  irreconcilable.  If  we  recommit  the  bill,  the  inevitable 
consequence  will  be,  that  we  shall  have  a  new  set  of  propo- 
sitions to  amend  it,  and  a  vast  deal  of  time  will  be  wasted 
in  vain  attempts  to  reconcile  things  essentially  irreconcilable. 
For  myself,  I  believe  the  bill  to  be  radically  wrong ;  and 
that  no  modifications  which  it  is  likely  to  assume  can  ever 
make  it  right.  I  had  intended  to  say  something  on  tho 


618  SPEECHES. 

general  subject ;  but  it  is  now  late,  and  I  forego  much  of 
what  it  was  my  purpose  to  have  submitted  to  the  Senate. 
I  will,  however,  as  briefly  as  possible,  throw  out  one  or  two 
leading  views  in  regard  to  it. 

The  proposed  object  of  this  bill  is  to  restrict  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands,  to  put  down  speculation,  and  to  prevent 
the  accumulation  of  a  surplus  revenue.  Plausible  objects, 
I  admit,  and  such  as  sound  well  to  the  ear  ;  but  the  prac- 
tical operation  of  the  bill  which  promises  them,  will,  as  I 
apprehend,  lead  to  very  different  results.  So  many  and  so 
subtle  are  the  means  by  which  those  in  power  are  able  to 
fleece  the  community  without  the  people  themselves  being 
aware  of  it,  that  the  mere  contemplation  of  the  machinery  is 
almost  enough  to  make  any  lover  of  his  country  despair.  I 
have  long  been  sensible  of  this  ;  but  if  I  were  called  upon  to 
select  an  instance,  which,  more  than  others,  forcibly  illus- 
trates the  truth  of  the  remark,  I  would  refer  any  one  who 
doubted  to  the  present  bill.  When  we  closely  examine  its 
provisions,  we  shall  perceive  that,  so  far  from  repressing,  its 
effects  will  be  to  secure  and  consummate,  the  most  enormous 
speculations  which  have  ever  been  witnessed  on  this  con- 
tinent. These  speculations  have  been  produced  by  those  in 
power, — and  the  large  profits  they  hope  to  realize  are  to  be 
consummated  by  the  passage  of  this  bill.  The  chairman  of 
the  committee  himself  has  told  the  Senate,  that  a  body  of 
the  public  lands,  greater  in  extent  than  the  largest  State 
in  the  Union,' has  been  seized  upon  by  speculators.  The 
Senator  from  Georgia  (Mr.  King)  states  the  amount  at  from 
thirty  to  forty  millions  of  dollars.  This  may  be  an  over 
estimate  ;  but,  at  the  lowest  calculation,  the  amount  cannot 
be  less  than  twenty-five  millions.  What  has  produced  this 
vast  investment?  What  has  thus  suddenly  rendered  the 
public  lands  an  object  of  such  enormous  speculations  ?  What 
but  the  state  of  the  currency  ?  Our  circulating  medium  has 
nearly  doubled  in  the  space  of  three  years.  It  has  increased 


SPEECHES.  619 

from  an  average  of  six  and  a  half  dollars  per  head  to  an 
average  of  ten  dollars.  And  what  has  been  the  natural — 
the  inevitable  consequence  ?  The  rise  of  every  thing,  the 
price  of  which  is  not  kept  down  by  some  legal  provision ; 
the  price  of  provisions  and  of  labor  has  nearly  doubled,  while 
the  price  of  land  has  continued  fixed  by  force  of  law.  Is  it, 
then,  any  thing  wonderful  that  land,  under  this  restraint, 
should  have  become  an  object  of  speculation  ?  There  lies 
the  root  of  the  evil.  This  enormous  augmentation  of  the 
circulating  medium  has  filled  all  the  channels  of  ordinary 
business  to  repletion,  and  the  overflow  finds  an  outlet  hi 
speculations.  But  who  have  been  the  authors  of  this  state 
of  things  ?  Every  body  knows  that  it  has  been  the  work  of 
those  in  power.  They  began  the  experiment  in  1833.  They 
were  distinctly  told  what  would  be  the  result.  They  were 
warned  that  bank  capital  would  be  increased,  and,  with  it, 
the  circulation  of  paper  money  ;  but;  in  the  face  of  all 
warning,  all  argument,  the  experiment  went  on.  The  only 
existing  check  which  had  power  to  control  the  excessive  issue 
of  bank  paper  was  put  down.  The  deposits  of  the  public 
money  were  transferred  from  where  the  laws  had  put  them, 
and  placed  in  deposit  banks  arbitrarily  selected  at  the  will 
of  the  Executive.  The  authors  of  the  present  state  of  things 
are  the  very  men  who  come  here  and  propose  to  us  this  bill 
as  a  remedy.  These  two  facts  should  be  put  together,  and 
kept  together,  in  the  mind  of  every  Senator  who  would  form 
a  right  judgment  in  the  matter.  The  removal  of  the  de- 
posits was  the  first  step.  We  are  now  come  to  the  second 
step  in  the  process.  The  men  who  accomplished  the  first 
have  already  profited  by  it  politically,  and,  if  rumor  speak 
truly,  in  other  ways  also.  Does  any  man  here  entertain 
a  doubt  that  high  officers  of  Government  have  used  those 
depositories  as  instruments  of  speculation  in  the  public 
lands  ?  Is  not  the  fact  notorious  ?  Is  not  one  in  the  imme- 
diate neighborhood  of  the  Executive  among  those  the  most 


620  SPEECHES. 

deeply  concerned  ?  Will  this  be  denied  ?  Is  it  not  well 
known  that  several  officers  in  the  departments  have  pur- 
chased lands,  to  sell  on  speculation,  with  funds  officially 
under  their  own  control  ?  How  the  same  combination  of 
persons  profited  politically  by  the  same  movement,  I  shall 
show  hereafter. 

Assuming,  then,  what  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  exces- 
sive increase  of  the  circulating  medium,  produced  by  the 
experiment,  is  the  main  cause  of  these  speculations  in  the 
public  lands — and  assuming,  on  the  authority  of  universal 
rumor,  that  high  functionaries  of  the  Government  have 
availed  themselves  of  the  state  of  tilings  thus  produced, 
I  come  now  to  what  is  my  main  proposition, — namely,  that 
this  bill  is  calculated  to  consummate  those  plans  of  specula- 
tion, and  that  without  this  measure,  or  something  equivalent 
to  it,  they  must  end  in  loss. 

[Here  some  explanation  took  place  between  Mr.  Calhoun  and 
Mr.  Walker,  as  to  the  statements  made  by  the  latter  in  reference  to  the 
probable  effect  of  the  rejection  of  this  bill.] 

Well,  Sir,  be  it  as  the  honorable  chairman  states.  He 
says  now,  that  if  the  bill  shall  not  become  a  law,  the  pur- 
chases of  the  public  lands  will  continue  to  go  on  as  they 
have  done  for  the  last  year.  Admit  it,  and  what  must  be 
the  consequence.  Cannot  all  men  perceive,  that  in  this,  as 
in  all  other  cases,  over  supply  must  operate  to  reduce  the 
price  ?  The  honorable  chairman  tells  us  that  the  amount 
of  land  required  for  fair  and  honest  settlement,  by  the  pro- 
gress of  the  country,  is  five  millions  of  acres  annually,  and 
that  the  amount  taken  upon  speculation  last  year  was  thirty 
millions.  If  this  be  so,  then  there  is  already  in  the  hands 
of  speculators  a  six  years'  supply.  Should  all  the  land- 
offices  be  closed  to-morrow,  the  amount  these  speculators 
hold  would  not  be  absorbed  by  the  regular  demands  of  the 
country  in  less  than  six  years.  Now,  the  greater  part  of 


SPEECHES.  621 

these  purchases  has  been  made  upon  loans ;  the  interest  is 
running  on  ;  and,  unless  the  sales  shall  be  in  proportion,  do 
not  all  men  see  that  the  accumulation  of  unproductive  lands 
upon  their  hands  must  infallibly  rain  those  who  are  engaged 
in  such  speculations  ?  Under  these  circumstances,  the  help 
of  legislation  is  the  only  thing  that  can  relieve  them.  I  re- 
peat it, — this  bill,  or  something  like  it,  is  indispensable.  It 
puts  a  finish  to  the  work.  The  land-offices  being  left  open, 
and  no  obstructions  being  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  purchase 
for  settlement,  we  may  suppose  that  one-half  of  the  five  mil- 
lions annually  required  will  be  purchased  from  the  Govern- 
ment. There  will  then  remain  only  two  and  a  half  millions 
to  take  of  the  thirty  millions'  stock  which  the  speculators 
already  hold ;  and,  at  this  rate,  it  must  be  twelve  years 
before  that  stock  can  be  disposed  of ;  and,  if  the  stock  is  to 
be  augmented  by  new  and  large  purchases  during  the  present 
year,  the  speculation  must  end  in  inevitable  ruin.  The 
thing  is  plain — it  cannot  be  denied — it  calls  for  no  demon- 
stration. 

What,  then,  is  resorted  to,  to  prevent  this  disastrous 
catastrophe  ?  The  answer  is  found  in  the  details  of  this 
bill ;  and  I  entirely  concur  with  the  Senator  from  Massa- 
chusetts (Mr.  Davis),  in  pronouncing  them  most  odious  in 
their  character.  No  American  citizen  is  to  be  left  free  to 
purchase  a  portion  of  the  public  domain,  the  property  of  the 
whole  people  of  the  United  States,  without  a  license.  Yes ; 
before  he  can  buy  the  land  which  his  own  Government  has 
offered  for  sale,  he  must  first  take  out  a  license.  Odious  as 
I  hold  all  licenses  upon  the  press,  or  licenses  upon  trade, 
I  hold  this  to  be  fully  as  obnoxious  as  either.  A  license  to 
purchase  the  public  lands  !  I  cannot  buy  myself  a  farm, 
though  I  have  the  money  in  my  pocket,  till  I  pay  a  dollar 
and  a  quarter  per  acre  for  a  license  ;  and  then  I  do  not  get 
a  title  until  I  have  complied  with  the  most  onerous  condi- 
tions ;  and  if,  after  I  have  paid  my  money,  I  see  reasons  to 


622  SPEECHES. 

change  my  mind,  I  cannot  leave  the  land  without  forfeiting 
all  I  have  paid.  If  I  find  the  situation  to  be  sickly,  I  cannot 
remain  there  without  risking  the  lives  of  my  family, — and  I 
cannot  sell  it  to  one  more  accustomed  to  the  climate,  without 
incurring  the  pains  of  perjury  as  a  speculator  ;  nor  can  I  re- 
move without  forfeiting  the  purchase-money. 

But  supposing  the  settler  remains ;  he  is  required  to 
consummate  his  title — not  in  a  court  of  law,  or  before  a 
judicial  officer,  but  before  the  register  and  receiver  of  the 
district.  I  do  not  know  how  Senators  from  the  new  States 
may  feel,  but  this  I  know,  that  nothing  under  heaven  could 
induce  me  to  place  Carolinians  in  such  circumstances.  The 
registers  and  receivers  of  a  land-office  to  be  judges  in  matters 
of  real  estate  !  Why,  Sir,  these  persons,  for  the  most  part, 
are  political  partisans.  They  have  obtained  their  offices  as 
a  reward  for  services  rendered  at  the  election.  Has  not  the 
doctrine  of  the  spoils  been  openly  avowed  on  this  floor  ? 
Has  it  not  been  unblushingly  maintained,  that  the  party 
which  obtains  a  political  victory  has,  as  a  thing  of  course,  a 
right  to  all  the  offices  of  the  State,  and  to  the  public  money 
into  the  bargain,  so  that  they  may  control  it  entirely  for 
their  own  benefit  ?  I  have  a  right,  therefore,  to  assume 
that,  as  a  general  thing,  these  registers  and  receivers  will  be 
political  partisans.  What,  then,  will  be  the  condition  of  a 
large  portion  of  our  citizens  ?  Allowing  the  consumption  of 
public  lands  to  be  two  and  a  half  millions  of  acres  a  year, 
you  will  have  about  a  hundred  thousand  voters,  the  title  to 
whose  earthly  all  will  be  in  the  hands  of  these  registers 
and  receivers.  Can  any  thing  be  conceived  more  odious  ? 
Would  the  license  of  the  press  itself  be  a  measure  more  hate- 
ful or  dangerous  ?  Sir,  we  have  spent  too  much  time  in 
considering  so  monstrous  a  proposition.  I  hope  we  shall  not 
waste  upon  it  another  moment. 

But  putting  the  political  effects  of  this  bill  out  of  view — 
let  us  inquire  what  will  be  its  moral  influence  ?  The  Sena- 


SPEECHES.  623 

tor  from  New- York  (Mr.  Wright)  told  us}  that  he  considered 
the  price  of  public  land  as  already  too  high,  and  that  he  was 
averse  to  placing  it  still  higher.  Sir,  these  were  his  words. 
Now  let  us  look  at  the  face  of  the  bill.  Its  practical  effect 
will  be,  an  enormous  increase  in  the  price  to  be  paid  for  the 
public  domain.  I  put  it  to  any  man  of  sound  sense,  whether 
he  would  not  rather  give  two  dollars  an  acre,  at  once,  for  his 
farm,  and  get  a  good  title  for  his  land,  without  further  diffi- 
culty ?  I  would,  most  certainly.  Consider  the  terms  on 
which  he  must  buy.  The  moment  he  enters  his  land,  under 
this  bill  it  becomes  subject  to  State  taxation ;  but  if  he 
buys  from  the  speculators,  it  will  not  be  so.  The  entire 
mass  of  lands  purchased  last  year,  including  some  of  the  best 
parts  of  the  public  domain,  is  now  held  for  sale  free  of  taxa- 
tion, while  lands  purchased  from  the  Government  must  im- 
mediately be  taxed.  What  chance  will  the  United  States 
lands  have  against  such  competition  ?  None  at  all ;  the 
speculators  will  have  the  complete  monopoly.  This,  then,  is 
a  question  between  the  Government  and  the  speculators. 
Our  stock  is  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  ;  theirs,  thirty 
millions.  Our  land  is  at  a  dollar  and  a  quarter  ;  theirs,  not 
less  than  three  dollars  ;  and  here  is  a  fair  competition.  But 
this  bill  comes  in  and  throws  the  market  into  the  hands  of 
the  speculators.  In  any  other  than  these  extraordinary 
times,  one  would  suppose  that  such  objections  would  be  fatal 
to  any  bill.  It  is  most  obvious  that,  unless  you  throw  re- 
strictions around  the  purchasers  of  land  from  the  United 
States,  the  object  of  the  speculators  must  be  defeated. 

But  we  are  asked,  what  is  to  be  done  with  all  this  specu- 
lation ?  I  answer,  let  it  alone,  and  it  will  run  down  of  itself. 
The  times  will  react.  The  present  state  of  things  is  arti- 
ficial ;  it  cannot  possibly  continue.  Speculation,  after  it  has 
run  its  course,  will  run  down,  and  that  with  far  less  injury 
than  will  result  from  any  attempt  to  put  it  down  by  legisla- 
tion. If,  however,  you  do  legislate,  there  are  many  expedi- 


624  SPEECHES. 

ents  besides  that  proposed  in  this  bill.  In  the  first  place, 
you  may  raise  the  price  of  the  public  lands.  This,  to  be 
sure,  will  confer  a  great  benefit  on  those  who  have  already 
purchased;  but  it  will  check  future  speculation,  I  have, 
however,  no  idea  that  any  such  measure  will  be  resorted  to  ; 
it  would  be  very  unpopular ;  and  the  object  which  gentle- 
men have  in  view  must  be  secured  without  the  loss  of  per- 
sonal popularity.  Then,  in  the  second  place,  you  may  shut 
the  land-offices.  This  expedient,  however,  would  be  liable 
to  the  same  objections  with  the  other,  for  you  can  hit  upon 
none  which  will  not  either  be  inoperative  altogether,  or  of 
great  advantage  to  those  who  have  already  purchased.  My 
opinions  in  regard  to  the  public  lands  have  undergone  a  great 
change  in  the  course  of  this  debate.  I  thought  there  was  a 
majority  in  this  Senate  who  would  resolutely  object  to  all 
rash  changes  in  our  land  system.  I  hoped,  most  confidently, 
that  New  England,  at  least,  would  have  stood  fast.  I  have 
been  disappointed.  I  hoped  that  the  public  lands  would  not 
be  drawn  into  our  political  contests.  But  in  this,  too,  I  have 
been  entirely  disappointed.  I  see  that  the  era  has  arrived 
when  our  large  capitalists  are  in  a  fair  way  to  seize  upon  the 
whole  body  of  the  public  lands.  This  has  compelled  a  great 
change  to  take  place  in  my  mind.  I  greatly  fear  that  we 
have  reached  the  time  when  the  public  domain  must  be  lost 
to  the  Government  for  all  useful  purposes.  We  may,  in- 
deed, receive  some  amount  of  revenue  from  it,  but  it  will  be 
accompanied  with  such  agitations,  and  so  much  trouble  and 
political  corruption,  that  the  gain  will  not  compensate  for 
the  evil  incurred.  I  have  made  up  my  mind,  if  a  fair  con- 
cession can  be  made,  to  concede  the  whole  to  the  new  States, 
on  some  fixed  and  well  considered  conditions.  I  am  for 
transferring  the  whole,  on  the  condition  tkat  they  shall  pay 
us  a  certain  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds,  and  submit  to  the 
necessary  limitations  as  to  the  mode  of  bringing  the  lands 
into  market ;  the  permanent  system  of  sale  not  to  be  dis- 


SPEECHES.  625 

turbed  for  some  years ;  and  after  that,  the  principle  of 
graduation  to  be  prudently  introduced.  I  have  always  felt 
the  force  of  the  argument,  that  the  new  States  are  not  now 
placed  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  other  members  of  the 
Confederacy.  They  are  full  of  land-officers,  and  other  pub- 
lic agents  under  your  control ;  and  in  regard  to  the  soil  within 
their  limits,  they  sustain  to  us  a  relation  which  must  ever  be 
productive  of  discontent  and  agitation.  Whether  a  thing  of 
this  kind  can  be  safely  done,  I  do  not  know  ;  but  of  this  I 
am  fully  persuaded — that  such  a  measure  would  be  infinitely 
better  than  the  scheme  proposed  in  this  bill.  The  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands  has  avowed  his  own 
earnest  belief  that  the  evils  of  the  existing  state  of  things 
are  such,  that  even  a  bill  like  this  should  be  resorted  to  as  a 
preferable  alternative.  He  considers  a  surplus  in  the  treasury 
as  a  great  evil  (and  so  do  I,  also,  if  it  is  to  be  permanent)  ; 
and  his  dread  of  a  surplus  is  so  great,  that  it  has  pre- 
vented him  from  regarding  the  details  of  this  bill,  as  I  am 
persuaded  he  would  have  done,  but  for  the  bias  thus 
produced. 

With  .these  views,  I  conclude  by  expressing  my  hope 
that  the  bill  will  not  be  recommitted ;  but  that  we  shall 
either  reject  it,  or  suffer  it  to  sleep  by  laying  it  on  the 
table. 


SPEECH 

On  the  reception  of  Abolition  Petitions,  delivered  in 
the  Senate,  February  6th,  1837. 

IF  the  time  of  the  Senate  permitted,  I  would  feel  it  to 
be  my  duty  to  call  for  the  reading  of  the  mass  of  petitions 
on  the  table,  in  order  that  we  might  know  what  language 
VOL.  ii. — 40 


626  SPEECHES. 

they  hold  towards  the  slaveholding  States  and  their  institu- 
tions ;  but  as  it  will  not,  I  have  selected,  indiscriminately 
from  the  pile,  two  ;  one  from  those  in  manuscript,  and  the 
other  from  the  printed,  and  without  knowing  their  contents 
will  call  for  the  reading  of  them,  so  that  we  may  judge,  by 
them,  of  the  character  of  the  whole. 

[Here  the  Secretary,  on  the  call  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  read  the  two  peti- 
tions.] 

Such,  resumed  Mr.  0.,  is  the  language  held  towards  us 
and  ours.  The  peculiar  institution  of  the  South — that,  on  t"hs. 
maintenance  of  which  the  very  existence  of  the  slaveholding    \^ 
States  depends,  is  pronounced  to  be  sinful  and  odious,  in  the      i 
sight  of  God  and  man ;  and  this  with  a  systematic  design    / 
of  rendering  us  hateful  in  the  eyes  of  the  world — with  a  view  / 
to  a  general  crusade  against  us  and  our  institutions.     This,  / 
too,  in  the  legislative  halls  of  the  Union  ;  created  by  these/ 
confederated  States,  for  the  better  protection  of  their  peace, 
their  safety,  and  their  respective  institutions  ; — and  yet,  we 
the  representatives  of  twelve  of  these  sovereign  States  agains : 
whom  this  deadly  war  is  waged,  are  expected  to  sit  here  in 
silence,  hearing  ourselves  and  our  constituents  day  after  da;  r 
denounced,  without  uttering  a  word  ;  for  if  we  but  open  ourV 
lips,  the  charge  of  agitation  is  resounded  on  all  sides,  and  we  ; 
are  held  up  as  seeking  to  aggravate  the  evil  which  we  resist/ 

f  Every  reflecting  mind  must  see  in  all  this  a  state  of  things 

(  deeply  and  dangerously  diseased. 

I  do  not  belong,  said  Mr.  C.,  to  the  school  which  holds, 
that  aggression  is  to  be  met  by  concession.     Mine  is  the  op- 
posite creed,  which  teaches  that  encroachments  must  be  met 
at  the  beginning,  and  that  those  who  act  on  the  opposit 
principle  are  prepared  to  become  slaves.     In  this  case,  in 
ticular,  I  hold  concession  or  compromise  to  be  fatal.     If 
concede  an  inch,  concession  would  follow  concession — cona^ 
promise  would  follow  compromise,  until  our  ranks  would 


627 


BO  broken  that  effectual  resistance  would  be  impossible. 
must  meet  the  enemy  on  the  frontier,  with  a  fixed  determK 
nation  of  maintaining  our  position  at  every  hazard.  Consent 
to  receive  these  insulting  petitions,  and  the  next  demand  will 
be  that  they  be  referred  to  a  committee  in  order  that  they 
may  be  deliberated  and  acted  upon.  At  the  last  session  we 
were  modestly  asked  to  receive  them,  simply  to  lay  them  on 
the  table,  without  any  view  to  ulterior  action.  I  then  told 
the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Buchanan),  who  so 
strongly  urged  that  course  in  the  Senate,  that  it  was  a  posi- 
tion that  could  not  be  maintained  ;  as  the  argument  in  favor 
of  acting  on  the  petitions  if  we  were  bound  to  receive,  could 
not  be  resisted.  I  then  said,  that  the  next  step  would  be  to 
refer  the  petition  to  a  committee,  and  I  already  see  indica- 
tions that  such  is  now  the  intention.  If  we  yield,  that  will 
be  followed  by  another,  and  we  will  thus  proceed,  step  by 
step,  to  the  final  consummation  of  the  object  of  these  peti- 
tions. We  are  now  told  that  the  most  effectual  mode  of  ar- 
resting the  progress  of  abolition  is,  to  reason  it  down ;  and 
with  this  view  it  is  urged  that  the  petitions  ought  to  be 
referred  to  a  committee.  That  is  the  very  ground  which 
was  taken  at  the  last  session  in  the  other  House,  but  instead 
of  arresting  its  progress  it  has  since  advanced  more  rapidly 
than  ever.  The  most  unquestionable  right  may  be  rendered 
doubtful,  if  once  admitted  to  be  a  subject  of  controversy,  and 
that  would  be  the  case  hi  the  present  instance.  The  subject 
is  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress— they  have  no  right  to 
touch  it  in  any  shape  or  form,  or  to  make  it  the  subject  of 
deliberation  or  discussion. 

In  opposition  to  this  view  it  is  urged  that  Congress  is 
bound  by  the  constitution  to  receive  petitions  in  every  case 
and  on  every  subject,  whether  within  its  constitutional  com- 
petency or  not.  I  hold  the  doctrine  to  be  absurd,  and  do 
solemnly  believe,  that  it  would  be  as  easy  to  prove  that  it 
has  the  right  to  abolish  slavery,  as  that  it  is  bound  to  receive 


628  SPEECHES. 

petitions  for  that  purpose.  The  very  existence  of  the  rule 
that  requires  a  question  to  be  put  on  the  reception  of  peti- 
tions, is  conclusive  to  show  that  there  is  no  such  obligation. 
It  has  been  a  standing  rule  from  the  commencement  of  the 
Government,  and  clearly  shows  the  sense  of  those  who  formed 
the  constitution  on  this  point.  The  question  on  the  recep- 
tion would  be  absurd,  if,  as  is  contended,  we  are  bound  to 
receive  ;  but  I  do  not  intend  to  argue  the  question  ;  I  dis- 
cussed it  fully  at  the  last  session,  and  the  arguments  then 
advanced  neither  have  been  nor  can  be  answered. 

As  widely  as  this  incendiary  spirit  has  spread,  it  has  not 

''yet  infected  this  body,  or  the  great  mass  of  the  intelligent 
and  business  portion  of  the  North  ;  but  unless  it  be  speedily 
stopped,  it  will  spread  and  work  upwards  till  it  brings  the 
two  great  sections  of  the  Union  into  deadly  conflict.  This 
is  not  a  new  impression  with  me.  Several  years  since,  in  a 
discussion  with  one  of  the  Senators  from  Massachusetts 
(Mr.  Webster),  before  this  fell  spirit  had  showed  itself,  I  th 
predicted  that  the  doctrine  of  the  proclamation  and  the  Fo: 
Bill, — that  this  Government  had  a  right,  in  the  last  resort, 
determine  the  extent  of  its  own  powers,  and  enforce  its  deci- 
sion at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  which  was  so  warmly  main- 
tained by  that  Senator,  would  at  no  distant  day  arouse  t 

<  dormant  spirit  of  abolitionism.    I  told  him  that  the  doc 
was  tantamount  to  the  assumption  of  unlimited  power  on 
part  of  the  Government,  and  that  such  would  be  the  imprest 
sion  on  the  public  mind  in  a  large  portion  of  the  Union. 
The  consequence  would  be  inevitable.    A  large  portion  of  the 
Northern  States  believed  slavery  to  be  a  sin,   and  would 
consider  it  as  an  obligation  of   conscience  to  abolish  it  if 
they  should  feel  themselves  in  any  degree  responsible  for  its  \ 
continuance, — and  that  this  doctrine  would  necessarily  lead  to 
the  belief  of  such  responsibility.     I  then  predicted  that  it  / 
would  commence  as  it  has  with  this  fanatical  portion  of/ 
society,  and  that  they  would  begin  their  operations  on  the; 


SPEECHES.  629 

ignorant,  the  weaK,  the  young,  and  the  thoughtless, 
gradually  extend  upwards  till  they  would  become  strong 
enough  to  obtain  political  control,  when  he  and  others  hold- 
ing the  highest  stations  in  society,  would,  however  relu 
tant,  be  compelled  to  yield  to  their  doctrines,  or  be  driven  i: 
obscurity.     But  four  years  have  since  elapsed,  and  all  thi^  is 
already  in  a  course  of  regular  fulfilment. 

Standing  at  the  point  of  time  at  which  we  have  now  ar- 
rived, it  will  not  be  more  difficult  to  trace  the  course  of  fu- 
ture events  now  than  it  was  then.  They  who  imagine  that 
the  spirit  now  abroad  in  the  North,  will  die  away  of  itself 
without  a  shock  or  convulsion,  have  formed  a  very  inadequate 
conception  of  its  real  character ;  it  will  continue  to  rise  and 
spread,  unless  prompt  and  efficient  measures  to  stay  its  pro- 
gress be  adopted.  Already  it  has  taken  possession  of  the 
pulpit,  of  the  schools,  and,  to  a  considerable  extent,  of  the 
press  ;  those  great  instruments  by  which  the  mind  of  the 
rising  generation  will  be  formed.  . 

However  sound  the  great  body  of  the  non-slaveholdingS. 
States  are  at  present,  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  they  will  be  ) 
succeeded  by  those  who  will  have  been  taught  to  hate  the  / 
people  and  institutions  of  nearly  one-half  of  this  Uniony' 
with  a  hatred  more  deadly  than  one  hostile  nation  ever  en- 
tertained towards  another.  It  is  easy  to  see  the  end.  B 
the  necessary  course  of  events,  if  left  to  themselves,  we  m 
become,  finally,  two  people.  It  is  impossible  under  t 
deadly  hatred  which  must  spring  up  between  the  two  great 
sections,  if  the  present  causes  are  permitted  to  operate  u 
checked,  that  we  should  continue  under  the  same  politi 
system.  The  conflicting  elements  would  burst  the  Uni 
asunder,  powerful  as  are  the  links  which  hold  it  togeth 
Abolition  and  the  Union  cannot  co-exist.  As  the  friend  of- 
the  Union  I  openly  proclaim  it, — and  the  sooner  it  is  knowiK 
the  better.  The  former  may  now  be  controlled,  but  in  a) 
short  time  it  will  be  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  arrest  the) 


630  SPEECHES. 

/course  of  events.     We  of  the  South  will  not,  cannot  surren- 
^Mer  our  institutions.     To  maintain  the  existing  relations  be- 
yfoveen  the  two  races,  inhabiting  that  section  of  the  Union, 
'is  indispensable  to  the  peace  and  happiness  of  both.     It  can- 
be  subverted  without  drenching  the  country  in  blood, 
extirpating  one  or  the  other  of  the  races.     Be  it  good 
bad,  it  has  grown  up  with  our  society  and  institutions,  and 
is  so  interwoven  with  them,  that  to  destroy  it  would  be  to 
troy  us  as  a  people.     But  let  me  not  be  understood  as 
\i^     /admitting,  even  by  implication,  that  the  existing  relations  be- 
jtween  the  two  races  in  the  slaveholding  States  is  an  evil : — 
far  otherwise  ;  I  hold  it  to  be  a  good,  as  it  has  thus  far 
proved  itself  to  be  to  both,  and  will  continue  to  prove  so  if 
'not  disturbed  by  the  fell  spirit  of  abolition.     I  appeal  to 
facts.     Never  before  has  the  black  race  of  Central  Africa, 
/from  the  dawn  of  history  to  the  present  day,  attained  a  con- 
lition  so  civilized  and  so  improved,  not  only  physically,  but 
lorally  and  intellectually.     It  came  among  us  in  a  low,  de- 
graded, and  savage  condition,  and  in  the  course  of  a  few  gen- 
tions  it  has  grown  up  under  the  fostering  care  of  our  in- 
stitutions, reviled  as  they  have  been,  to  its  present  com- 
tively  civilized  condition.     This,  with  the  rapid  increase 
numbers,  is  conclusive  proof  of  the  general  happiness  of 
race,  in  spite  of  all  the  exaggerated  tales  to  the  contrary. 
/   In  the  mean  time,  the  white  or  European  race  has  not  de- 
/generated.     It  has  kept  pace  with  its  brethren  in  other  see- 
's, tions  of  the  Union  where  slavery  does  not  exist.    It  is  odious 
\to  make  comparison ;  but  I  appeal  to  all  sides  whether  the 
South  is  not  equal  in  virtue,  intelligence,  patriotism,  courage, 
/disinterestedness,  and  all  the  high  qualities  which  adorn  our 
/nature.      I  ask  whether  we  have  not  contributed  our  full 
share  of  talents  and  political  wisdom  in  forming  and  sustain- 
ing this  political  fabric ;  and  whether  we  have  not  constantly 
inclined  most  strongly  to  the  side  of  liberty,  and  been  the 
first  to  see  and  first  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  power. 


SPEECHES.  631 

In  one  thing  only  are  we  inferior — the  arts  of  gain  ;  we  ac- 
knowledge that  we  are  less  wealthy  than  the  Northern  section  I 
of  this  Union,  but  I  trace  this  mainly  to  the  fiscal  action  of) 
this  Government,  which  has  extracted  much  from,  and  spent/ 
little  among  us.  Had  it  been  the  reverse, — if  the  exactionV 
had  been  from  the  other  section,  and  the  expenditure  witty 
us,  this  point  of  superiority  would  not  be  against  us  now,  as 
it  was  not  at  the  formation  of  this  Government. 

But  I  take  higher  ground. /  I  hold  that  in  the  present 
state  of  civilization,  where  two  races  of  different  origin,  and 
distinguished  by  color,  and  other  physical  differences,  as  well 
as  intellectual,  are  brought  together,  the  relation  now  existing 
in  the  slaveholding  States  between  the  two,  is,  instead  of  an 
evil,  a  good — a  positive  good./  I  feel  myself  called  upon 
speak  freely  upon  the  subject  where  the  honor  and  interes 
of  those  I  represent  are  involved.  I  hoJtL-then^-ihai 
never  has  yet  existed  a  wealthy  and  civilized  societvjn^  whicl 
one^pbrtion  of  tn^cbmmunity  did^not,  in  point  of  fact,  live 

L4mn£iaLa849:this 


sertion,  it  is  fully  born  ft  ont  by^hiatflry.     This  is  not  the  pi 
peFoccasion,  but  if  it  were,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  ti 
the  various  devices  by  which  the  wealth  of  all  civilized 
inunities  has  been  so  unequally  divided,  and  to  show  by  wl 
means  so  small  a  share  has  been  allotted  to  those  by  whose^ 
labor  it  was  produced,  and  so  large  a  share  given  to  the  noi 
producing  classes.     The  devices  are  almost  innumerable,  fr 
the  brute  force  and  gross  superstition  of  ancient  times,  to  the] 
subtle  and  artful  fiscal  contrivances  of  modern.     I  might 
well  challenge  a  comparison  between  them  and  the  more  di- 
rect, simple,  and  patriarchal  mode  by  which  the  labor  of  the 
African  race  is,  among  us,  commanded  by  the  European.     I ' 
may  say  with  truth,  that  in  few  countries  so  much  is  left  to 
the  share  of  the  laborer,  and  so  little  exacted  from  him,  or 
where  there  is  more  kind  attention  paid  to  him  in  sickness  or/ 
infirmities  of  age.   Compare  his  condition  with  the  tenants  of 


632  SPEECHES. 

/the  poor  houses  in  the  more  civilized  portions  of  Europe — 
V  look  at  the  sick,  and  the  old  and  infirm  slave,  on  one  hand, 
/   in  the  midst  of  his  family  and  friends,  under  the  kind  super- 
|    intending  care  of  his  master  and  mistress,  and  compare  it 
U^ith  the  forlorn  and  wretched  condition  of  the  pauper  in  the 
|  poor  house.     But  I  will  not  dwell  on  this  aspect  of  the  ques- 
tion ;  I  turn  to  the  political ;  and  here  I  fearlessly  assert 
that  the  existing  relation  between  the  two  races  in  the  South, 
against  which  these  blind  fanatics  are  waging  war,  forms  the 
most  solid  and  durable  foundation  on  which  to  rear  free  and 
Stable  political  institutions.     It  is  useless   to  disguise  the 
fact.     There  is  and  always  has  been  in  an  advanced  stage  of 
wealth  and  civilization,  a  conflict  ^between  labor  and  capital. 
TEe  condition  of  society  in  the  South  exemptsjis  from  .the 
disorders  and  dangers  resulting  from  this  conflict ;  and  which 
explamsjffhy  it ,.  is  that_thejdUical  j^^ 
holding  States  has  been  so  much  more  stable  and  quiet  than 
tliatjif-iJbe  North.     The  advantages  of  the  former,  in  this 
respect,  will  become  more  and  more  manifest  if  left  undis- 
turbed by  interference  from  without,  as  the  country  advances 
wealth  and  numbers.     We  have,  in  fact,  but  just  entered 
that  condition  of  society  where  the  strength  and  durability 
f  our  political  institutions  are  to  be  tested ;  and  I  venture 
nothing  in  predicting  that  the  experience  of  the  next  gene- 
ration will  fully  test  how  vastly  more  favorable  our  condition 
of  society  is  to  that  of  other  sections  for  free  and  stable  in- 
stitutions, provided  we  are  not  disturbed  by  the  interference 
of  others,  or  shall  have  sufficient  intelligence  and  spirit  to 
resist  promptly  and  successfully  such  interference.     It  rests 
with  ourselves  to  meet  and  repel  them.     I  look  not  for  aid 
to  this  Government,  or  to  the  other  States  ;  not  but  there  are 
kind  feelings  towards  us  on  the  part  of  the  great  body  of  the 
non-si  aveholding  States ;  but  as  kind  as  their  feelings  may 
be,  we  may  rest  assured  that  no  political  party  in  those 
States  will  risk  their  ascendency  for  our  safety.     If  we  do 


SPEECHES.  635 

not  defend  ourselves  none  will  defend  us ;  if  we  yield  we  will' 
be  more  and  more  pressed  as  we  recede ;  and  if  we  submit 
we  will  be  trampled  under  foot.  Be  assured  that  emancipa- 
tion itself  would  not  satisfy  these  fanatics : — that  gained,  the 
next  step  would  be  to  raise  the  negroes  to  a  social  and  polit-  \ 
ical  equality  with  the  whites ;  and  that  being  effected,  we 
would  soon  find  the  present  condition  of  the  two  races  re- 
versed. They  and  their  northern  allies  would  be  the  mas- 
ters, and  we  the  slaves  ;  the  condition  of  the  white  race  in 
the  British  West  India  Islands,  bad  as  it  is,  would  be 
happiness  to  ours.  There  the  mother  country  is  interest 
in  sustaining  the  supremacy  of  the  European  race.  It 
true  that  the  authority  of  the  former  master  is  destroy 
but  the  African  will  there  still  be  a  slave,  not  to  individuals 
but  to  the  community, — forced  to  labor,  not  by  the  authority 
of  the  overseer,  but  by  the  bayonet  of  the  soldiery  and  t 
rod  of  the  civil  magistrate. 

Surrounded  as  the  slaveholding  States  are  with  such  i 
minent  perils,  I  rejoice  to  think  that  our  means  of  defen 
are  ample,  if  we  shall  prove  to  have  the  intelligence  and  spin 
to  see  and  apply  them  before  it  is  too  late.     All  we  want 
concert,  to  lay  aside  all  party  differences,  and  unite  with 
and  energy  in  repelling  approaching  dangers.     Let  there 
concert  of  action,  and  we  shall  find  ample  means  of  securi 
without  resorting  to  secession  or  disunion.     I  speak  with 
knowledge  and  a  thorough  examination  of  the  subject,  a 
for  one,  see  my  way  clearly.  One  thing  alarms  me — the  eager 
pursuit  of  gain  which  overspreads  the  land,  and  which  ab- 
sorbs every  faculty  of  the  mind  and  every  feeling  of  the  heart 
Of  all  passions  avarice  is  the  most  blind  and  compromisin 
—the  last  to  see  and  the  first  to  yield  to  danger, 
not  hope  that  any  thing  I  can  say  will  arouse  the  South 
due  sense  of  danger ;  I  fear  it  is  beyond  the  power  of 
tal  voice  to  awaken  it  in  time  from  the  fatal  security  in 
which  it  has  fallen. 


634  SPEECHES. 


SPEECH 

On  his  proposition  to  cede  the  Public  Lands  to  the 
new  States  upon  the  payment  of  one-third  of  the 
gross  amount  of  the  sales ;  delivered  in  the  Senate 
February  Tth,  1837. 

[THE  Bill  to  suspend  the  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  being  under 
consideration,  Mr.  Calhoun  offered  the  following  as  a  substitute : — 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  all  the  public 
lands  within  the  States  of  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkansas, 
Missouri,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  Michigan,  with  the  exception  of 
the  sites  of  fortifications,  navy  and  dock  yards,  arsenals,  magazines, 
and  all  other  public  buildings,  be  ceded  to  the  States  within  the  limits 
of  which  they  are  respectively  situated,  on  the  following  conditions : 

First.  That  the  said  States  shall  severally  pass  acts,  to  be  irrevo- 
cable, that  they  will  annually  pay  to  the  United  States  thirty-three 
and  one-third  per  cent,  on  the  gross  amount  of  the  sales  of  such  lands, 
on  or  before  the  first  day  of  February  of  each  succeeding  year. 

Secondly.  That  the  minimum  price,  as  now  fixed  by  law,  shall  re- 
main unchanged  until  the  first  day  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and 
forty-two  ;  after  which  time,  the  price  of  all  lands  heretofore  offered  at 
public  sale,  and  then  remaining  unsold  ten  years  or  upwards  preced- 
ing the  first  day  of  January  aforesaid,  may  be  reduced  by  said  States 

to  a  price  not  less  than per  acre ;  and  all  lands  that  may  have 

been  offered  at  public  sale,  and  remaining  unsold  fifteen  years  or  up- 
wards, preceding  the  first  day  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  forty- 
seven,  may  thereafter  be  reduced  by  said  States  to  a  price  not  less 

than per  acre ;  and  all  lands  that  may  have  been  offered  at 

public  sale,  and  remaining  unsold  twenty  years  or  upwards,  preceding 
the  first  day  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-two,  may  then  be 

reduced  by  said  States  to  a  price  not  less  than per  acre ;  and  all 

lands  that  may  have  been  offered  at  public  sale,  and  remaining  un- 
^old  twenty  years  or  upwards,  preceding  the  first  day  of  January,  eigh- 


SPEECHES.  635 

teen  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  may  thereafter  be  reduced  by  said  States 

to  a  price  not  less  than per  acre ;  and  all  lands  that  may  have 

been  offered  at  public  sale,  and  remaining  unsold  thirty  years  or  up- 
wards, preceding  the  first  day  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
two,  may  thereafter  be  reduced  by  said  States  to  a  price  not  less  than 

per  acre ;  and  all  lands  that  shall  have  been  offered  at  public 

sale,  and  remaining  unsold  thirty-five  years  or  upwards,  shall  be  ceded 
immediately  to  the  States  in  which  said  lands  are  situate :  Provided, 
That  all  lands  which  shall  remain  unsold  after  having  been  offered  at 
public  sale  for  ten  years,  and  which  do  not  come  under  the  above  pro- 
visions, shall  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of  graduation  and  cession 
aforesaid  at  the  respective  periods  of  ten,  fifteen,  twenty,  twenty-five, 
thirty,  and  thirty-five  years  after  said  sale,  commencing  from  the  expi-_ 
ration  of  ten  years  after  the  same  had  been  offered  at  public  sale. 

Thirdly.  That  the  lands  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  legal  subdi- 
visions in  the  sale  and  survey  as  is  now  provided  by  law,  reserving  for 
each  township  the  sixteenth  section,  or  the  substitute,  as  heretofore 
provided  by  law ;  and  the  land  not  yet  offered  for  sale,  shall  be  first 
offered  by  the  State  at  public  auction,  and  be  sold,  for  cash  only,  in  the 
manner  now  provided  by  law.  And  any  land  now  or  hereafter  re- 
maining unsold  after  the  same  shall  have  been  offered  for  sale  at  public 
auction,  shall  be  subject  to  entry  for  cash  only,  according  to  the  gradua- 
tion which  may  be  fixed  by  the  States  respectively  under  the  provi 
sions  of  this  act. 

Fourth.  This  cession,  together  with  the  portion  of  the  sales  to  be 
retained  by  the  States  respectively  under  the  provisions  of  this  act 
shall  be  in  full  of  the  five  per  cent,  fund,  or  any  part  thereof,  not  al- 
ready advanced  to  any  State ;  and  the  said  States  shall  be  exclusively 
liable  for  all  charges  that  may  hereafter  accrue  from  the  surveys,  sales, 
and  management  of  the  public  lands,  and  extinguishment  of  Indian 
title  within  the  limits  of  said  States  respectively. 

Fifth.  That,  on  a  failure  to  comply  with  any  of  the  above  con- 
ditions, or  a  violation  of  the  same,  on  the  part  of  any  of  the  said 
States,  the  cession  herein  made  to  the  State  failing  to  comply  with,  or 
violating  said  conditions,  shall  be  thereby  rendered  null  and  void ;  and 
all  grants  or  titles  thereafter  made  by  said  State,  for  any  portion  of  the 
public  lands  within  the  limits  of  the  same  ceded  by  this  act,  shall  be, 
and  is  hereby  declared  to  be  null  and  void,  and  of  no  effect  whatever. 


636  SPEECHES. 

SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  whenever  the  President  of 
the  United  States  shall  be  officially  notified  that  any  of  the  said  States 
has  passed  an  act  in  compliance  with  the  above  conditions,  it  shall  be 
his  duty  forthwith  to  adopt  such  measures  as  he  shall  think  proper  to 
close  the  land-offices,  including  the  surveying  department,  within  the 
limits  of  said  State  ;  and  that  the  commissions  of  all  officers  connected 
therewith  shall  expire  on  a  day  to  be  fixed  by  him,  but  which  day 
shall  not  be  beyond  six  months  from  the  day  he  received  the  official 
notification  of  the  passage  of  said  act. 

SEC.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  on  such  notification  being 
made,  the  said  State  shall  be  relieved  from  all  compacts,  acts,  or  ordi- 
nances, imposing  restrictions  on  the  right  of  said  State  to  tax  any  lands 
by  her  authority  subsequent  to  the  sale  thereof,  ceded  by  this  act ;  and 
all  maps,  titles,  records,  books,  documents,  and  papers,  in  the  General 
Land-Office  at  Washington,  relative  to  said  lands,  shall  be  subject  to 
the  order  and  disposition  of  the  Executive  of  said  State. 

SEC.  4.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  lands  of  the  United 
States  within  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  with  the  exceptions 
enumerated  in  the  first  section  of  this  act,  shall  be,  and  the  same  are 
hereby,  ceded  to  said  State. 

In  reply  to  the  objections  urged  against  this  substitute  by  Messrs. 
Benton  and  Buchanan,  Mr.  Calhoun  said :] 

HE  wished  the  Senate  to  be  assured  that,  in  offering  the 
proposition  he  had  presented,  he  had  no  indirect  or  concealed 
purpose.  He  was  perfectly  sincere  in  proposing  and  advocat- 
ing it,  and  that  on  the  highest  possible  ground.  When  the 
Senate  entered  upon  the  present  discussion,  he  had  had  little 
thought  of  offering  a  proposition  like  this.  He  had,  indeed? 
always  seen  that  there  was  a  period  coming  when  this  Govern- 
ment must  cede  to  the  new  States  the  possession  of  their  own 
soil ;  but  he  had  never  thought  till  now  that  period  was  so 
near.  What  he  had  seen  this  session,  however,  and  especial- 
ly the  nature  and  character  of  the  bill  which  was  now  likely 
to  pass,  had  fully  satisfied  him  that  the  time  had  arrived. 
There  were  at  present  eighteen  Senators  from  the  new  States. 
In  four  years  there  would  be  six  more,  which  would  make 


SPEECHES.  637 

twenty-four.  All,  therefore,  must  see  that,  in  a  very  short 
period,  those  States  would  have  this  question  in  their  own 
hands.  And  it  had  been  openly  said,  that  they  ought  not  to 
accept  of  the  present  proposition,  because  they  would  soon  be 
able  to  get  better  terms.  He  thought,  therefore,  that,  instead 
of  attempting  to  resist  any  longer  what  must  eventually  hap- 
pen, it  would  be  better  for  all  concerned  that  Congress  should 
yield  at  once  to  the  force  of  circumstances,  and  cede  the  pub- 
lic domain.  His  objects  in  this  movement  were  high  and 
solemn  objects.  He  wished  to  break  down  the  vassalage  of  the 
new  States.  He  desired  that  this  Government  should  cease 
to  hold  the  relation  of  a  landlord.  He  wished,  further,  to 
draw  this  great  fund  out  of  the  vortex  of  the  Presidential  con- 
test, with  which,  it  had  openly  been  announced  to  the  Senate, 
there  was  an  avowed  design  to  connect  it.  He  thought  the 
country  had  been  sufficiently  agitated,  corrupted,  and  debas- 
ed by  the  influence  of  that  contest ;  and  he  wished  to  take 
this  great  engine  out  of  the  hands  of  power.  If  he  were  a 
candidate  for  the  presidency,  he  mightf  desire  to  leave  it 
there.  He  wished  to  go  further.:  he  sought  to  remove  the 
immense  amount  of  patronage  connected  with  the  management 
of  this  domain — a  patronage  which  had  corrupted  both  the 
old  and  the  new  States  to  an  enormous  extent.  He  sought 
to  counteract  the  centralism,  which  was  the  great  danger  of 
this  Government,  and  thereby  to  preserve  the  liberties  of  the 
people  much  longer  than  would  otherwise  be  possible.  As  to 
what  was  to  be  received  for  these  lands,  he  cared  nothing 
about  it.  He  would  have  consented  at  once  to  yield  the 
whole,  and  withdraw  altogether  the  landlordship  of  the  Gen- 
eral Government  over  them,  had  he  not  believed  that  it 
would  be  most  for  the  benefit  of  the  new  States  themselves 
that  it  should  continue  somewhat  longer. 

These  were  the  views  which  had  induced  him  to  present 
the  amendment.  He  offered  no  gilded  pill.  He  threw  in  no 
apple  of  discord.  He  was  no  bidder  for  popularity.  He  pre- 


638  SPEECHES. 

scribed  to  himself  a  more  humble  aim — which  was,  simply  to 
do  his  duty.  He  sought  to  counteract  the  corrupting  ten- 
dency of  the  existing  course  of  things.  He  sought  to  weaken 
this  Government  by  divesting  it  of,  at  least,  a  part  of  the  im- 
mense patronage  it  wielded.  He  held  that  every  great  landed 
ed  estate  required  a  local  administration,  conducted  by  persons 
more  intimately  acquainted  with  local  wants  and  interests 
than  the  members  of  a  central  government  could  possibly 
be.  If  any  body  asked  him  for  a  proof  of  the  truth  of 
his  positions,  he  might  point  them  to  the  bill  now  before  the 
Senate.  Such  were  the  sentiments,  shortly  stated,  which 
had  governed  him  on  this  occasion. 

[The  substitute  being  rejected,  Mr.  Calhoun,  on  the  9th  February, 
introduced  the  same  as  a  substantive  proposition  in  the  form  of  a  bill, 
and  in  reply  to  Mr.  Clay,  said :] 

That  he  came  here  with  a  fixed  resolution  to  resist  all  at- 
tempts at  innovation  upon  our  system  in  relation  to  the  pub- 
lic lands  ;  and  he  might  add,  with  no  small  hope  that  he 
would  be  successful. 

Mr.  C.  said  he  took  it  as  rather  unkind,  though  he  was 
sure  it  had  not  been  so  intended,  that  the  Senator  from  Ken- 
tucky should  say  that  there  was  any  analogy  between  this 
bill  and  that  from  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  which 
Mr.  C.  had  strenuously  opposed.  This  measure,  reluctantly 
forced  upon  him  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  had  been  intro- 
duced with  a  desire  to  terminate  great  political  evils.  He 
assured  that  honorable  Senator,  whatever  might  be  the  obli- 
gation of  duty  which  he  felt  in  opposing  this  measure,  a  no 
less  imperative  obligation  urged  him  to  bring  it  forward. 
There  is,  said  Mr.  C.,  too  much  power  here  ;  the  tendency 
of  this  Government  to  centralism  is  overpowering  ;  and  among 
the  many  powerful  instruments  which  can  be,  and  are  brought 
to  bear  on  securing  and  extending  Executive  power,  this  con- 
trol of  the  public  lands  is  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  effec- 


SPEECHES.  639 

tual.  It  now  gives  to  any  administration  disposed  so  to  use 
it,  control  over  perhaps  nine  States — eight  certainly — of  this 
Union.  These  States,  so  far  as  the  public  lands  are  concern- 
ed, are  the  vassals  of  this  Government.  We  are  in  the  place 
of  a  great  landlord,  and  they  of  tenants  ;  we  have  the  own- 
ership and  control  over  the  soil  they  occupy.  Can  there  be 
any  doubt  as  to  how  such  an  ascendency  will  be  used  in  the 
present  corrupt  state  of  the  country  ?  Is  there  any  doubt 
as  to  how  it  has  been  used  ?  or  that  the  influence  derived 
from  it  is  a  growing  influence  ?  We  must  find  some  reme- 
dy for  such  a  state  of  things,  or  sink  under  it.  It  is  in  vain 
to  tell  us,  that  the  Senators  from  the  new  States  are  as  capa- 
ble of  giving  an  independent  vote  on  measures  connected  with 
the  public  lands  as  those  from  the  old  States.  It  is  impos- 
sible, in  the  nature  of  things.  Their  constituents  have  that 
feeling  of  ownership  which  is  naturally  inseparable  from  the 
occupation  of  the  soil ;  and  it  must  and  will  control  the  action 
of  their  representatives. 

And  now  I  put  it  to  the  bosom  of  every  Senator,  whether 
the  mere  moneyed  income  derived  from  the  public  domain,  is 
to  be  compared,  for  one  moment,  to  the  great  advantage  of 
putting  these  Senators  on  the  same  independent  footing  with 
ourselves  ?  I  look  with  sympathy  upon  their  condition,  and 
I  feel  very  sure  they  will  be  liberated  from  it  with  joy.  Such, 
I  am  very  sure,  would  be  my  feelings  in  the  like  circumstan- 
ces. So  long  as  there  was  no  attempt  to  use  the  control  of 
the  public  lands  for  purposes  of  a  political  character,  their 
condition  was  very  different ;  but,  since  this  has  been  swept 
into  the  great  vortex  of  political  influence,  their  situation  is 
wholly  changed.  I  am  for  knocking  off  their  chains.  Sir, 
said  Mr.  C.,  I  have,  on  a  deliberate  view  of  the  whole  case, 
entered  upon  this  course,  and  I  am  resolved  to  go  for  this 
measure  with  all  my  power.  I  seek  not  its  popularity  or  in- 
fluence. I  had  rather  that  some  other  individual  had  moved 
in  it,  as  more  than  one  Senator  here  can  bear  me  witness : 


640  SPEECHES. 

but  none  would  move  ;  and  I  have  therefore  determined  to 
proceed.  I  believe  the  time  has  arrived,  and  I  am  resolved 
to  go  on  in  the  face  of  all  the  imputations  to  which  my  mo- 
tives may  be  liable.  I  have  often  done  my  duty  under  very 
difficult  circumstances,  as  all  who  hear  me  well  know.  As  to 
popularity,  I  despise  it.  I  would  not  turn  on  my  heel  to  ob- 
tain it.  It  is  a  fleeting  shadow,  unworthy  of  the  pursuit  of 
an  upright  man.  No,  sir,  I  move  here  on  a  conscientious 
conviction  of  high  and  imperious  duty  ;  and  I  shall  therefore  go 
forward  until  I  have  effected  my  object,  if  it  can  be  effected. 
I  believe  it  will  prove,  in  its  practical  results,  a  great  blessing 
to  the  country.  I  am  convinced  no  stronger  measure  can  be 
devised  for  withdrawing  the  public  lands  from  the  great  game 
of  political  scrambling  and  gambling  for  the  presidency. 

As  to  the  details  of  the  bill :  I  am  under  the  impression 
that  the  sum  demanded  from  the  new  States  for  the  cession 
of  these  lands  should  be  moderate ;  especially  considering  that 
they  will  be  charged  with  the  whole  trouble  and  expense  of 
their  administration,  and  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  human 
mind,  they  will  necessarily  have  the  feeling  that  they  possess 
a  better  right  to  these  lands  than  others,  from  the  fact  of 
their  occupancy.  The  next  reason  is,  that  we  may  prevent 
any  disturbance  from  a  feeling  of  discontent ;  and  that  the 
arrangement  we  make  may  be  viewed  as  a  liberal  one,  even 
by  the  new  States  themselves.  So  desirous  am  I  to  effect 
this  object,  that  I  will  consent  to  modify  this  feature  of  the 
bill,  by  inserting  almost  any  rate  per  cent,  which  the  new 
States  shall,  on  the  whole,  deem  most  prudent  and  advisable. 
Another  reason  why  I  have  set  the  per  cent,  at  a  low  rate 
is,  a  desire  that  the  plan  should  operate  as  a  benefit  to  the 
new  States.  I  wish  to  counteract  the  tendency  to  running 
down  of  the  price  of  land,  and  to  secure  its  sale  at  prices  cal- 
culated for  the  benefit  of  all  parties.  To  secure  this,  I  have 
inserted  a  provision  that,  if  there  shall  be  any  departure  from 


SPEECHES.  641 

this  condition  of  the  cession,  the  grant  itself  shall  be  void,  so 
as  to  make  it  a  judicial  question. 

[The  bill  was  further  opposed  by  Mr.  Webster,  when  Mr.  Calhoun 
replied  as  follows :] 

I  must  express  my  regret  that  this  bill  should  be  opposed 
at  this  early  stage,  and  in  so  unusual  a  manner.  As  long  as 
I  have  been  a  member  of  this  and  the  other  Houee,  I  cannot 
recollect  more  than  three  or  four  instances  before  the  present, 
in  which  a  bill  has  been  opposed  at  its  second  reading,  and 
then  under  very  peculiar  circumstances.  And  why,  may  I 
ask,  is  the  usual  course  departed  from  on  tho  present  occasion  ? 
Why  not  let  this  bill  receive  its  second  reading  and  be  re- 
ferred, as  other  bills  are,  to  a  committee,  to  be  considered 
and  reported  on  ?  The  reply  is,  to  prevent  agitation  ; — that 
is,  as  I  understand  it,  to  prevent  the  feelings  of  the  public 
from  being  excited,  and  its  attention  directed  to  this  highly 
important  subject.  If  that  be  the  intention,  I  tell  gentle- 
men they  will  fail  in  their  object.  The  subject  is  already 
before  the  public  ;  and  if  my  life  be  spared,  I  shall  keep  it 
there — shall  agitate  it  till  the  public  attention  shall  be  roused 
to  a  full  and  thorough  investigation  of  a  measure  which  I 
firmly  believe  is  not  less  essential  to  the  interest  of  the  whole 
Union,  than  it  is  to  that  of  the  new  States.  I  tell  them 
more  ;  that  the  very  unusual  and  extraordinary  course  they 
have  adopted  in  opposition  to  this  bill,  will  but  more  deeply 
agitate  the  public  mind,  and  the  more  intensely  attract  its 
attention  to  the  subject.  It  will  naturally  excite  the  inquiry, 
Why  not  let  this  bill  take  the  ordinary  course  ?  Why  not 
let  it  go  to  a  committee  to  investigate  its  provisions,  and 
present  all  the  arguments  for  and  against  it,  fully  and  fairly, 
so  that  its  merits  and  demerits,  such  as  they  are,  may  be 
clearly  understood  ?  Opposition  to  so  reasonable  a  course 
will  make  the  impression,  that  the  object  is  to  suppress  in- 


642  SPEECHES. 

vestigation,  whatever  may  be  the  motive  of  gentlemen,  and 
will  naturally  excite  suspicion  and  more  diligent  inquiry. 

In  making  these  remarks,  I  am  not  ignorant  that  the 
merits  of  the  bill  are  fully  open  to  discussion  on  the  pending 
question ;  but  it  is  impossible  that  a  hasty  discussion,  at 
this  late  stage  of  the  session,  and  when  the  time  of  the  Senate 
is  so  fully  engrossed  with  other  subjects,  can  be  so  satisfactory 
as  would  be  a  report  in  which  the  views  of  the  majority  and 
minority  of  the  committee,  after  full  consultation,  might  be 
calmly  and  deliberately  spread  at  large  before  the  public. 
And  why  not  adopt  so  natural  a  course  ?  Besides  being  more 
favorable  to  investigation,  it  would  consume  less  time;  a 
point  of  no  small  importance  at  the  present  stage  of  the 
session.  If  referred,  the  committee  would  doubtless  be  so 
constituted  as  to  comprehend  both  the  friends  and  opponents 
of  the  measure.  Among  the  latter,  if  my  wishes  should  be 
consulted,  I  would  be  glad  to  see  the  name  of  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster),  who  is  so  capable  of  doing 
full  justice  to  whatever  side  he  undertakes  to  defend.  It  is 
thus  that  the  whole  merits  of  the  measure  would  be  fully  pre- 
sented, and,  if  it  be  so  liable  to  objection  as  is  supposed,  the 
result  might  satisfy  the  new  States  themselves,  that  it  ought 
not  to  be  adopted.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  argument 
should  prove  to  be  decidedly  in  its  favor,  as  I  firmly  and  con- 
scientiously believe,  the  very  agitation  which  gentlemen  seem 
so  much  to  dread,  would  be  promptly  terminated  by  the 
adoption  of  the  measure.  Thus  regarding  the  subject,  I 
cannot  but  regret  that  this  bill  has  not  been  permitted  to 
take  the  usual  course ;  and  that  I  am  compelled,  in  this  hasty 
manner,  without  premeditation,  to  reply  to  the  arguments  of 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster),  which,  after 
mature  deliberation,  he  has  urged  with  all  his  force  against 
the  measure.  I  shall  begin  with  my  reply  to  his  constitu- 
tional objections.  He  holds  that  the  measure  is  unconsti- 


SPEECHES.  643 

tutional,  because  we  have  no  authority  to  give  away  the 
public  lands. 

I  do  not  feel  myself  obliged  to  meet  this  objection.  It  is 
not  true  in  fact.  The  bill  makes  no  gift.  It  cedes  the  public 
lands  to  the  States  within  which  they  are  respectively  sit- 
uated, subject  to  various  conditions,  and  among  others,  that 
they  shall  pay  over  one-third  of  the  gross  amount  of  the  sales 
to  the  United  States ;  that  they  shall  surrender  all  their 
claims  against  the  Government  under  the  two  and  three  per 
cent,  funds,  and  take  the  whole  trouble  and  expense  of  the 
management  of  the  land,  including  the  extinguishment  of  the 
Indian  titles.  But  I  waive  this  decisive  answer.  I  meet  the 
Senator  on  his  own  ground,  and  with  a  conclusive  argument, 
as  far,  at  least,  as  he  is  concerned.  He  admits,  that  it  would 
not  be  a  violation  of  the  constitution  for  Congress  to  make  a 
donation  of  land  to  an  individual.  And  what,  I  ask,  is  there 
to  prevent  it  from  making  a  donation  to  two  ;  to  an  hundred  ; 
or  to  a  thousand  ?  and  if  to  them  individually,  why  not  to 
them  in  the  aggregate,  as  a  community  or  a  State  ?  He,  in- 
deed, admits,  that  Congress  may  make  a  donation  of  public 
lands  to  a  State  for  useful  purposes.  If  to  one  State,  why  not 
to  several  States — to  the  new  States — if  the  measure  should 
be  thought  to  be  wise  and  proper  ?  If  there  be  a  distinction, 
I  acknowledge  my  intellect  is  too  obtuse  to  perceive  it ;  but 
as  the  bill  makes  no  gift,  I  feel  under  no  necessity  of 
pressing  the  argument  further. 

The  Senator's  next  position  is,  that  we  have  no  right  to 
delegate  the  trust  of  administering  the  public  domain  con- 
fided to  us  by  the  constitution,  to  the  States.  Here,  again, 
I  may  object,  that  the  argument  has  no  foundation  in  truth. 
The  bill  delegates  no  trust.  It  makes  a  concession—^  sale 
of  the  public  lands,  to  the  new  States  ;  and  what  the  Sena- 
tor calls  trusts,  are  but  conditions  annexed  to  the  sales — con- 
ditions alike  beneficial  to  them  and  to  the  old  States.  The 
simple  question  then  is,  Can  Congress  sell  public  lands  to  a 


644  SPEECHES. 

State  ?  Suppose  the  State  of  Ohio  were  to  offer  to  pay  $1.25 
an  acre  for  the  remnant  of  the  public  lands,  within  her  limits, 
— could  not  Congress  sell  it  to  her  ?  And,  if  it  may  sell  for 
$1.25,  may  it  not  for  a  dollar  ;  for  75  cents  ;  or  a  less  sum, 
if  it  should  be  deemed  the  true  value  ?  Again  :  if  Congress 
can  make  an  absolute  sale,  may  it  not  make  a  conditional  one  ? 
and  if  so,  why  may  it  not  make  the  disposition  proposed  in 
this  bill  ?  That  is  the  question,  and  I  would  be  glad  to  have 
it  answered.  If  I  ever  had  any  constitutional  scruples  on  the 
subject,  the  arguments  of  the  Senator  would  have  satisfied 
me  that  they  were  without  the  shadow  of  foundation.  His 
reasoning  faculties  are  well  known  ;  and  if  these  are  the 
strongest  constitutional  objections  that  he  can  advance,  we 
may  be  assured,  that  the  bill  is  perfectly  free  from  all  objec- 
tions of  that  description. 

Having  now  dispatched  the  objections  against  the  consti- 
tutionality of  this  bill,  I  shall  next  consider  the  arguments 
which  the  Senator  urged  against  its  expediency.  He  says, 
that  I  placed  the  necessity  of  this  bill  on  the  fact  of  the  pas- 
sage of  the  land  bill  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Public 
Lands  ;  and  as  it  was  still  uncertain  whether  it  would  be- 
come a  law,  the  ground  on  which  the  necessity  of  this  bill 
was  based,  may  yet  fail.  The  Senate  will  remember  the 
remarks  I  made  on  asking  leave  to  introduce  this  bill,  and 
that  I  was  far  from  placing  it  on  the  simple  fact  of  the  pas- 
sage of  that  bill.  I  took  broader  ground,  and  rested  my 
motion  on  the  character  of  the  bill  and  the  circumstances 
which  attended  its  passage  through  this  body.  From  these, 
I  concluded  that  the  period  we  all  acknowledge  must  at  some 
time  come,  had  actually  arrived,  when  the  public  lands  with- 
in the  new  States  should,  on  proper  conditions,  be  ceded  to 
them.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  now  to  go  into  a  discus- 
sion of  the  character  of  the  bill,  or  the  history  of  its  passage 
through  the  Senate.  We  all  have,  no  doubt,  formed  our 
opinions  in  relation  to  both.  From  all  I  have  seen  and 


SPEECHES.  645 

heard,  I  am  satisfied,  that  the  bill  had  not  the  hearty  assent 
of  its  supporters,  whether  from  the  new  or  old  States  ;  and 
I  doubt  very  much  whether  there  was  an  individual  who 
voted  for  it,  that  gave  it  his  hearty  approbation.  Many  who 
had  uniformly  opposed  all  measures  of  the  kind,  and  who  re- 
presented portions  of  the  Union  which  had  ever  been  vigilant 
on  all  questions  connected  with  the  public  lands,  were  found 
in  the  ranks  of  those  who  supported  the  bill.  The  explana- 
tion is  easy.  It  assumed  the  character  of  a  party  measure, 
to  be  carried  on  party  grounds,  without  reference  to  the  true 
interests  of  either  the  new  or  old  States  ;  and,  if  we  are  to 
credit  declarations  made  elsewhere,  to  fulfil  obligations  con- 
tracted anterior  to  the  late  Presidential  election.  From  all 
this,  I  inferred,  we  had  reached  the  period,  when  it  was  no 
longer  possible  to  prevent  the  public  domains  from  becom- 
ing the  subject  of  party  contention,  and  being  used  by  party, 
as  an  engine  to  control  the  politics  of  the  country.  It  was 
this  conviction,  and  not  the  mere  passage  of  the  bill,  as  the 
Senator  supposes,  that  induced  me  to  introduce  the  measure. 
I  saw,  clearly,  it  was  time  to  cut  off  this  vast  source  of 
patronage  and  power,  and  to  place  the  Senators  and  Bepre- 
sentatives  from  the  new  States  on  an  equality  with  those 
from  the  old,  by  withdrawing  our  local  control,  and  breaking 
the  vassalage  under  which  they  are  now  placed.  The  Sena- 
tor from  Massachusetts  objects  to  the  term,  and  denies  that 
Congress  exercises  any  local  control  over  those  States.  I 
acknowledge  that  the  epithet  is  strong ;  perhaps  too  much 
so.  I  used  it  to  express  the  strong  degree  of  dependence 
of  the  new  States  on  this  Government,  whose  power  and 
patronage  are  ramified  over  their  whole  surface,  and  whose 
domains  constitute  so  large  a  portion  of  their  territory. 
I  certainly  did  not  anticpate  that  the  Senator  from  Massa- 
chusetts, or  any  other,  would  deny  the  existence  of  this  de- 
pendence, or  the  local  control  of  the  Government  within 
their  limits.  Can  any  thing  be  more  local  than  the  lands  of 


646  SPEECHES. 

a  State  ?  and  can  any  State  be  said  to  be  free  from  depend- 
ence on  a  government,  when  that  government  has  the  ad- 
ministration of  a  large  portion  of  its  domain  ?  Is  it  no 
hardship  that  the  citizens  of  the  new  States  should  be  com- 
pelled to  travel  nine  or  ten  hundred  miles  to  this  place,  and 
to  wait  our  tardy  justice  on  all  claims  connected  with  the 
public  lands  ;  a  subject,  in  its  own  nature  the  most  local  of 
all,  and  which  ought,  above  all  others,  to  be  under  the 
charge  of  the  local  authorities  of  the  States  ?  I  ask  him  if 
he  would  be  willing  to  see  Massachusetts  placed  in  the  same 
relation  to  this  Government  ?  and,  if  it  were,  whether  it 
would  not  destroy  its  independence  ?  I  ask  him  if  it  must  not 
give  a  great  and  controlling  influence  wherever  it  exists  ? 
Through  its  lands,  the  authority  and  action  of  this  Govern- 
ment pervade  the  whole  territory  of  the  new  States  ;  and 
then1  citizens  become  claimants  at  your  doors,  session  after 
session,  either  for  favor  or  justice.  I  do  not  say  that  all  this 
is  incompatible  with  the  sovereignty  of  those  States,  but  I  do 
aver,  that  it  is  in  derogation  of  their  sovereignty. 

The  Senator  next  objects  to  this  measure,  that  it  would 
not  free  Congress  from  its  present  difficulties,  in  reference  to 
the  public  domain.  He  says,  that  we  should  soon  have  the 
new  States  here,  besieging  us  with  memorials  to  alter  the 
conditions  of  cession,  with  all  the  dependence  and  difficul- 
ties of  which  we  now  complain.  My  impression  is  very  dif- 
ferent. Make  the  terms  liberal,  and  they  will  be  satisfied. 
They  will  relieve  Congress  from  the  whole  burden  of  busi- 
ness, as  far  as  the  lands  are  concerned,  which  now  occupies 
so  much  of  its  time  ;  and  the  public  councils  will  no  longer 
be  under  the  dangerous  influence  inseparable  from  their 
management.  If,  hereafter,  a  new  state  of  things  should 
arise,  and  the  arrangement  proposed  in  the  bill  should  re- 
quire revision,  it  will  be  for  those,  who  come  after  us,  to 
apply  a  remedy  ;  and  I  have  no  fear,  but  they  will  do  their 
duty. 


SPEECHES.  647 

The  senator  next  insists,  that  the  acquisition  of  these 
lands  will  prove  no  benefit  to  the  new  States,  and  predicts, 
that  it  would  involve  them  in  incessant  agitation  and  trouble. 
Such  might  be  the  case,  if  the  cession  was  absolute  ;  but  the 
bill  contains  provisions,  which  will  prove  an  effectual  check 
against  these'  difficulties.  To  place  its  provisions  beyond 
alteration  or  attack,  it  is  expressly  provided  that  if  they 
should  be  violated  by  the  States,  the  cession  itself  should  be 
void,  and  all  grants  made  subsequent  thereto,  shall  be  null 
and  of  no  effect.  They  are  thus  placed  under  the  safeguard 
of  the  judiciary  ;  and  the  courts  of  the  Union  will  determine 
on  questions  growing  out  of  their  infraction.  For  this  pur- 
pose, the  cession  has  assumed  the  form  of  a  compact,  and  I 
feel  confident  that,  under  its  provisions,  the  new  States  would 
administer  the  land  without  agitation  or  any  serious  trou- 
ble or  difficulty.  If  this  can  be  effected,  I  appeal  to  the 
Senators,  whether  the  land  within  their  limits  ought  not  to 
be  under  their  local  administration  ?  I,  for  one,  feel  that  we 
of  the  old  States  have  not,  and  cannot  have,  that  full  and 
accurate  local  knowledge,  necessary  for  their  proper  manage- 
ment. Of  all  the  branches  of  our  business,  it  is  that  which 
I  least  understand.  From  this  defect  of  information,  the 
Land  Committee  has  it  almost  exclusively  under  its  sole  con- 
trol, whenever  it  is  so  constituted  as  to  attract,  in  any  de- 
gree, the  confidence  of  the  House.  This  has  been  the  case 
from  the  first.  I  well  remember  that,  when  I  first  took  my 
seat  in  the  other  House,  Jeremiah  Morrow,  a  member  from 
Ohio,  a  man  of  great  integrity  and  good  sense,  was  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  and  was,  in  fact, 
the  sole  legislator  on  all  subjects  connected  with  them  ;  and 
in  this  body  we  have  almost  invariably  yielded  our  judgment 
to  the  committee,  from  a  conscious  want  of  information. 
The  difficulty  is  growing  from  year  to  year,  with  the  vast 
increase  of  the  new  States  and  territories,  and  the  growing 
complication  of  our  land  code  ;  and  the  consequent  increase 


648  SPEECHES. 

of  business  is  such,  that  we  already  have  scarce  time  to  dis- 
patch it  with  due  attention.  In  a  short  time,  the  increase 
will  be  doubled,  and  what  shall  we  then  do  ?  By  passing 
this  bill,  we  will  be  wholly  relieved  from  this  burden  ;  and 
the  questions  we  are  now  compelled  to  determine,  without 
adequate  knowledge,  will  then  be  settled  by  those  whose 
local  knowledge  will  make  them  familiar  and  well  acquainted 
with  the  subject. 

But,  we  are  told  by  the  Senator,  that  the  public  lands 
have  been  well  administered  by  the  General  Government  ; 
and  that  he  cannot  surrender  his  belief,  but  that  they  will 
continue  so  to  be.  That  they  were  well  administered  in  the 
early  stages  of  the  Government,  while  they  were  not  an  object 
of  much  pecuniary  or  political  interest,  I  am  ready  to  admit ; 
but  I  hold  it  not  less  certain,  that  as  the  number  and  popu- 
lation of  the  new  States  increase,  and  with  them  the  value 
of  the  public  lands  and  the  political  importance  of  those 
States,  we  must  become  year  by  year  less  and  less  competent 
to  their  management,  till  finally  we  shall  become  wholly  so. 
I  believe,  that  we  are  not  now  far  from  that  period.  Does 
not  the  Senator  see  the  great  and  growing  influence  of  the 
new  States — and  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  any  unprincipled 
and  ambitious  man  from  one  of  them  to  wield  that  influence 
at  his  pleasure  ?  Should  he  propose  any  measure  in  relation 
to  the  public  lands,  be  it  ever  so  extravagant  and  dangerous, 
the  members  from  the  new  States  dare  not  vote  against  it, 
however  adverse  to  the  measure.  It  is  useless  to  disguise 
the  fact,  that  our  possession  of  so  much  land  in  the  new 
States,  creates  and  cherishes  an  antagonist  feeling  on  their 
part  towards  the  Government,  as  to  every  measure  that  re- 
lates to  them.  They  naturally  consider  your  policy  as  op- 
posed to  their  interest,  and  as  retarding  their  growth  and 
prosperity,  great  as  they  are.  We  must  take  human  nature 
as  it  is,  and  accommodate  our  measures  to  it,  instead  of 
making  the  vain  attempt  to  bend  it  to  our  measures.  We 


SPEECHES.  649 

must  calculate  that  the  means  of  control,  which  this  state  of 
things  puts  into  the  hands  of  the  ambitious  and  designing, 
will  not  be  neglected  ;  and,  instead  of  idly  complaining,  let 
us  remove  the  cause  by  wise  and  timely  legislation.  The 
difficulties  and  dangers  are  daily  on  the  increase.  Four 
years  more  will  probably  add  three  more  new  States,  and  six 
additional  Senators,  with  a  great  increase  of  members  in  the 
other  House  ;  and,  what  is  more  important,  a  corresponding 
increase  of  votes  and  influence  in  the  electoral  college.  Can 
you  doubt  the  consequences  ?  The  public  lands,  with  their 
immense  patronage,  will  be  brought  to  bear  more  and  more 
on  the  action  of  Congress  ;  will  control  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion ;  and  the  result  will  be  that  he  who  uses  this  vast  fund 
of  power  with  the  least  scruple,  will  carry  away  the  prize. 

The  Senator  himself  sees  and  acknowledges  the  approach 
of  this  dangerous  period;  and  agrees,  that  when  it  does 
come,  we  must  surrender  the  public  lands  within  the  new 
States — but  is  for  holding  on  till  it  shall  have  actually  ar- 
rived. My  opinion  is  the  reverse.  I  regard  it  as  one  of  the 
wisest  maxims  in  human  affairs,  that  when  we  see  an  inevi- 
table evil,  like  this,  not  to  be  resisted,  approaching — to  make 
concessions  in  time,  while  we  can  do  it  with  dignity ;  and 
not  to  wait  until  necessity  compels  us  to  act,  and  when  con- 
cession, instead  of  gratitude,  will  excite  contempt.  The 
maxim  is  not  new.  I  have  derived  it  from  the  greatest  of 
modern  statesmen,  Edmund  Burke.  He  urged  its  adoption 
on  the  British  Government,  in  the  early  stages  of  our  Revolu- 
tion,— and,  if  the  obstinate  and  infatuated  statesman,  Lord 
North,  then  at  the  head  of  affairs,  had  listened  to  his  warn- 
ing voice,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  our  Revolution  would 
have  taken  place  ;  but  events  were  ordered  otherwise.  The 
voice  of  wisdom  was  unheeded,  and  the  Revolution  followed, 
with  all  its  consequences,  which  have  so  greatly  changed  the 
condition  of  the  world. 

I  have  thus  hastilv  and  without  the  advantage  of  pre- 


650 

vious  reflection,  replied  to  the  arguments  of  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts.  I  would  have  been  much  gratified,  if  a  course 
better  suited  to  the  magnitude  of  the  subject,  and  more 
favorable  for  full  and  deliberate  discussion,  had  been  adopted ; 
but,  as  it  is,  I  have  passed  over  no  argument,  as  far  as  I  can 
remember,  which  he  advanced,  and,  I  trust,  have  replied  to 
none,  which  I  have  not  successfully  refuted. 

I  shall  now  conclude  with  a  few  remarks,  in  reply  to  the 
Senator  from  New  Jersey  (Mr.  Southard).  He  tells  us, 
that  he  will  not  bid  for  the  new  States.  I  regret,  said 
Mr.  C.,  that  I  do  not  see  him  in  his  place.  Does  he  mean 
to  intimate,  that,  in  introducing  this  bill,  I  am  bidding  for 
them  ?  If  he  does,  I  throw  back  the  injurious  imputation. 
I  indignantly  repel  the  charge.  No,  Sir,  I  am  not  a  bidder. 
What  I  have  done,  has  been  from  an  honest  conviction  of 
duty  ;  and  not  less  for  the  benefit  of  the  old  than  the  new 
States.  The  measure,  I  conscientiously  believe,  would  be 
alike  serviceable  to  both. 

[Mr.  Southard,  who  Lad  been  absent,  here  returned  to  the  Cham- 
ber. Mr.  C.  seeing  him,  repeated  his  remarks,  on  which  Mr.  S.  dis- 
claimed having  said  any  thing  like  what  Mr.  C.  understood  him  to 
have  said.  On  which  Mr.  C.  resumed :] 

I  am  happy  to  hear  it.  I  felt  confident  that  the  Senator 
could  not  intend  to  cast  so  injurious  an  imputation  on  me, 
and  I  rejoice  to  hear  from  his  own  lips  the  frank  and  honor- 
able disclosure  he  has  made. 

But  I  not  only  believe  the  measure  to  be  beneficial  and 
expedient,  but  I  firmly  believe  it  to  be  indispensable,  in 
order  to  restore  the  Government  to  a  sound  and  healthy 
condition. 

The  tendency  of  our  system  to  centralism,  with  its  ruin- 
ous consequences,  can  no  longer  be  denied.  To  counteract 
this,  its  patronage  must  be  curtailed.  There  are  three  great 
sources  to  which  its  immense  patronage  may  be  mainly 


SPEECHES.  651 

traced,  and  by  which  the  Government  is  enabled  to  oxert 
such  an  immense  control  over  public  opinion — the  public 
lands,  the  post-office,  and  the  currency.  The  first  may  be 
entirely  removed.  This  bill  will  cut  it  up,  root  and  branch. 
,By  a  single  stroke  we  would  not  only  retrench  this  growing 
and  almost  boundless  source  of  patronage,  but  also  free  our- 
selves from  the  pressure  of  an  immense  mass  of  business, 
which  encumbers  our  legislation,  and  divides  and  distracts 
our  attention  ;  and  this  would  be  done  without  impairing,  hi 
the  long  run,  our  pecuniary  resources.  In  addition,  the 
measure  would  place  the  Senators  from  the  new  States  on 
the  same  equal  and  independent  footing  in  this  chamber 
with  ourselves.  In  such  results  who  would  not  rejoice  ? 
The  Senators  from  the  new  States  would  especially  have 
cause  to  rejoice  in  the  change.  Believe  them  from  the  de- 
pendent condition  of  their  States,  and  they  would  be  found 
in  the  front  ranks,  sustaining  the  laws  and  the  constitution 
against  the  encroachment  of  power. 

But  the  Senator  from  New  Jersey  tells  us  that  we  have 
no  power  to  pass  this  bill,  as  it  would  be  in  violation  of  the 
ordinance,  which  makes  the  public  land  a  common  fund  for 
benefit  of  all  the  States  ;  and  that  we,  as  trustees,  are  bound 
to  administer  it  strictly  in  reference  to  the  object  of  the 
trust.  In  reply,  I  might  ask  the  Senator  how  he  can  recon- 
cile his  construction  of  the  ordinance  with  the  constant  prac- 
tice of  the  Government,  in  which,  if  I  mistake  not,  it  has 
been  sustained  by  his  vote  ?  How  many  grants  have  been 
made  out  of  the  public  domain  to  colleges,  academies,  asy- 
lums for  the  deaf  and  dumb,  and  other  institutions  of  like 
character  ?  If  such  concession  be  consistent  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  ordinance,  what  prevents  this  bill  from  being 
so  also  ?  But  I  rest  not  my  reply  on  that  ground.  I  meet 
the  Senator  according  to  his  interpretation  of  the  ordinance. 
I  assert  boldly  that  the  disposition  this  bill  proposes  to  make 
of  the  portion  of  the  public  domain  within  the  new  States,  is 


652  SPEECHES. 

the  very  best,  under  existing  circumstances,  that  can  be  made 
— regarding  it  in  reference  to  the  common  interest  of  all  the 
States.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  all  sides  agree  the 
new  States  will  soon  be  able  to  command  their  terms,  when 
others  less  favorable  to  the  common  interest  may  be  imposed. 
If  we  of  the  old  States  make  it  a  point  to  hold  on  to  the  last, 
they  will,  by  a  necessary  reaction,  make  a  point  to  extort  all 
they  can  when  they  get  the  power.  But  if  we  yield  in  time, 
a  durable  arrangement  may  be  made,  mutually  beneficial  and 
satisfactory  to  both  parties. 

The  Senator  further  objects,  that  if  this  bill  should  pass, 
its  provisions  would  be  extended,  from  necessity,  to  all  the 
States  which  may  hereafter  be  admitted  into  the  Union.  I 
must  say,  I  see  no  such  necessity ;  but  my  present  impres- 
sion is,  that  such  would  be  the  course  that  wisdom  would 
dictate.  According  to  my  mode  of  thinking,  all  the  revenue 
we  may  derive  from  the  sales  of  lands  in  a  State,  after  its 
admission,  is  not  to  be  compared  in  importance  to  its  inde- 
pendence as  a  sovereign  member  of  the  Union  ;  for  there  is 
no  danger  of  the  falling  of  our  institutions  for  the  want  of 
pecuniary  means,  while  there  is  no  small  danger  of  their  over- 
throw from  the  growing  and  absorbing  attraction  of  this 
central  power. 


END  OF  VOL.  n. 


2  58 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


1NTERL13RARY    LOANS 

DEC  0  9  1974 

TWO  WEEKS  FROM  DATE  OF  RECEIK 
NON-RENEWA 


Form  L9-Series  444 


OCT  1 1  ?004< 


*  /304 


URL 


IX)S  ANGEl 
LIBRARY 


